University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

(USC Thesis Other)

Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Impact of Job Insecurity on Intergenerational Knowledge Sharing Among Machinists in
the United States
by
Catherine Holdbrook-Smith

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation proposal submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education

May 2022

© Copyright by Catherine Holdbrook-Smith 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Catherine Holdbrook-Smith certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Krop
Monique Datta
Eric Canny, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This study explores the degree to which MatLowe, Inc. can meet its goal of training 100% of its
current millennial machinists in the production department to be as experienced as its current
baby boomer machinists by 2024. It analyzes how the baby boomer and millennial machinists
perceive the act of knowledge sharing, to explore whether different factors influence their
motivation to participate in intergenerational knowledge sharing and to understand the
relationship between job insecurity and their willingness to participate in knowledge sharing.
This study uses a quantitative causal-comparative approach rooted in social exchange theory to
answer these three research questions:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial
machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to take part in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
The study finds that job insecurity negatively impacts the motivation to participate in knowledge
sharing for both millennials and baby boomers at MatLowe, Inc. with no major differences in
their perceptions of or motivators in knowledge sharing. It concludes that MatLowe, Inc. must
establish an effective knowledge sharing program.
Keywords: intergenerational knowledge sharing, baby boomer, millennial, social
exchange theory

v
Dedication
To my children, Arielsela, Petra, Benjamin, and Jude Emmanuel. I am immensely blessed and
eternally grateful for your support when I decided to embark on this doctoral journey, and for
your full support throughout the program. Arielsela, you checked on me, peer-reviewed my
writings, and provided very strong recommendations. Petra, you, and Benjamin ensured I had my
power naps before class. Each day I had a class, you ensured your young brother, Jude,
completed his homework and had his dinner before bed. You also made me delicious meals and
treats while I was in class. Without your support and resilience, I would not have been able to
complete this doctoral program. Thank you for believing in me. You each are a blessing to me
and our entire family.
To the most incredibly amazing, loving, and intelligent parents that eight children could ever
have, my mother, Mrs. Rose Anastacia Erskine, and my late father, Lt. General Emmanuel
Alexander Erskine (Rtd). Msg, Dso, Rcds, Psc., your words of encouragement held me up. Each
weekend you gave me words of wisdom, which carried me through the upcoming week. You
grounded me and reminded me to focus and move forward. Indeed, Daddy, as you told me
before the good Lord called you home, I am of your stock. I continue to welcome life’s
challenges and overcome them. I know you and Mummy are proud of me. Your love kept me
focused on the tasks at hand. I could not have achieved my doctoral degree without your love
and support.
To my brothers and sisters, Dr. Rosamund Eleanor Erskine-Buttler, Alexander Jude Erskine
LL.B Barrister, Emmanuel Erskine, Genevieve Caroline Erskine Wiafe-Annor, Edward
Alexander Erskine, Joshua Erskine, and Anita Maria Vered Erskine-Amaizo, I am profoundly
appreciative of your love and support throughout my program. Your words of confidence and
vi
love enhanced my drive to pursue my doctoral degree. I am grateful for your phone calls, and for
following up on my progress throughout my program.
To my children, parents, and siblings, I dedicate this dissertation to you. The successful
completion of my doctoral degree is a testament to our unconditional love and God’s
immeasurable mercies. Although Daddy passed away on May 7, 2021, three days after my
dissertation defense, on May 4, 2021, I believe he was confident I had completed my doctoral
degree in organizational change and leadership as scheduled.

vii
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my special gratitude to Dr. Eric Canny, my Dissertation Chair, for
your expertise in the dissertation writing process and your commitment to my success. Your
patience and dedication to my dissertation writing have been the primary reason for my success
in the OCL program. Despite your busy schedule, you made yourself available for early or late
zoom meetings to review my paper, and I am deeply indebted to you. I especially want to thank
you for your accommodations when I was losing my father and preparing for my dissertation
proposal. Because of your support, I was able to defend my dissertation days before my father’s
passing.
I wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee whose assistance helped me
reach many milestones as I completed this project. Dr. Cathy Krop and Dr. Monique Data, I am
humbled that you were members of my dissertation committee. Thank you for your keen interest
in my dissertation topic and your mentorship. I appreciate your expertise in dissertation writing
and your commitment to my success. My deepest gratitude to my colleagues in OCL Cohort 12
for the sustaining support we established and shared from the beginning of the program until the
end.
I would like to pay my special regards to my dearest friends, Dr. Yvette Seymour, Dr.
Charles Daniels, and Dr. Paolo Paruccini. Your peer reviews and commitment to our group
projects were greatly appreciated. Adamu Mba, my sincere appreciation for your guidance and
mentorship. To David Allen Ford, through your support and mentorship, you have been a beacon
of hope. I sincerely appreciate your commitment to my success and to all those you continue to
inspire.
viii
I wish to thank my Magnetika family whose support was essential to the completion of
this project: Basil P. Caloyeras, Chairman; Ameet Butala, Executive Vice President; Nagui
Guirgis, Chief Operating Officer; and Yvette Mejia, Human Resources Generalist. I am
immensely grateful for your support throughout my studies.
Fight On!!!

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 2
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 4
Organizational Performance Status and Needs ................................................................... 5
Related Literature................................................................................................................ 5
Importance of Organizational Innovation ........................................................................... 6
The Stakeholder Performance Goal .................................................................................... 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 9
Stakeholder Groups in the Study ........................................................................................ 9
Demographics of MatLowe’s Production Operations ...................................................... 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 12
Overview of Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................... 12
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 14
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................. 16
Knowledge Transfer.......................................................................................................... 16
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer ............................................................................. 17
Knowledge Sharing ........................................................................................................... 18
Intergenerational Knowledge Sharing .............................................................................. 18
x
Baby Boomers: Definition, Characteristics, Generational Effects ................................... 19
Millennials: Definition, Characteristics, Generational Effects ......................................... 20
The Manufacturing Industry ............................................................................................. 23
The Effects of Generational Differences .......................................................................... 25
The Benefits of IKS .......................................................................................................... 27
Challenges That Yield the Benefits of IKS....................................................................... 29
Effective KS Examples and Practices ............................................................................... 31
Positive Antecedents to IKS ............................................................................................. 32
Negative Antecedents of IKS............................................................................................ 41
Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ........................ 44
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences ........................... 45
Chapter Three: Methods ............................................................................................................... 55
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 55
Ethics and the Role of Researcher .................................................................................... 56
Overview of the Methodology .......................................................................................... 57
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis ............................................................... 57
Chapter Four: Results or Findings ................................................................................................ 63
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 63
Knowledge Influence As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses ........................... 66
Motivational Influences As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses........................ 72
Organizational Influences As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses .................... 76
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 85
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 89
Suggested Recommendations ........................................................................................... 89
Future Research ................................................................................................................ 94
xi
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 102
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 102
References ................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 131
Appendix B: Knowledge Sharing Survey Questions .................................................................. 132
Appendix C: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Exempt Review Form ..................................... 157

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics of MatLowe's Employees 3
Table 2: Organizational Mission and Organizational Performance Goal 4
Table 3: Demographics of MatLowe’s Production Operations 10
Table 4: Knowledge Influences and Assessment 48
Table 5: Motivational Influences and Assessment 50
Table 6: Organizational Influences and Assessment 53
Table 7: Research Questions and Related Influences for the Study 65
Table 8: Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences 69
Table 9: Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences 70
Table 10: Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences 71
Table 11: Study of Validation of Motivational Influences 75
Table 12: Study of Validation of Organizational Influences 80

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: A Conceptual Framework of IKS 54

1

Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
At this time, 6.3 million people work in manufacturing, but more are still needed (Sirkin
et al., 2013). With the decrease in the manufacturing workforce, knowledge sharing (KS)
between employees has also decreased (Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Sirkin et al., 2013). The
Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute (2018) estimated that approximately 2.4 million
manufacturing jobs will remain vacant as technology advances and the generation of baby
boomers retire in greater numbers. Consequently, researchers expect a continuous decline in KS
within manufacturing. This study, therefore, seeks to answer three research questions: How do
the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial machinists?
How are the motivational factors to take part in knowledge sharing the same or different for baby
boomers and millennials? How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational
knowledge sharing?
Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute (2018) found two primary reasons for the
workforce deficit. The first is the lack of knowledge or skills needed to succeed in the
manufacturing sector (Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Sirkin et al., 2013). Knowledge is a mixture of
individual experience, values, contextual information, and expert know-how (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998). Secondly, employees in the manufacturing field are often perceived as less
creative or less innovative than those in other business fields (Bloom, 2018). However, as
innovation increases in the manufacturing field, this second reason for the workforce deficit is
expected to decline (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018).
In 2013, Sirkin et al. explained that researchers needed to better understand knowledge
sharing (KS) within manufacturing, especially within the workforce shortage. KS is the
bidirectional, two-way sharing of experiences, values, contextual information, and expert know-
2

how between co-workers (Rupčić, 2018), and it has been proven to address knowledge deficits in
other fields, including in the financial and business sectors (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). However,
little KS occurs within manufacturing when compared to other fields (McCallum, 2018). KS is
also uncommon among intergenerational employees, including baby boomers and millennials
(McCallum, 2018).
Millennial (ML) is a term used to describe the population born between 1980 and 2000
(Pew Research Center, 2018), while baby boomer (BB) refers to the demographic cohort born
between 1946 and 1964 (Combs, 2016). This study will examine the practice of intergenerational
knowledge sharing (IKS) among manufacturing employees, referring to the bidirectional sharing
of experiences, values, contextual information, and expert know-how between co-workers of
different generations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Rupčić, 2018). It seeks to provide an insight
on how to facilitate IKS within manufacturing organizations by transferring tribal knowledge
from BBs to MLs to increase the number of experienced production workers in manufacturing.
Organizational Context and Mission
MatLowe, Inc. is a pseudonym used to protect the identity of the actual organization in
this study. MatLowe is a medium-sized national manufacturing company established in 1958 and
headquartered in Southern California. With operations in California, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts, MatLowe is projecting $18 million in annual sales for 2020, illustrating its
exponential growth by 50% from 2019. This organization has approximately 139 employees, of
which 40% are females. Of the 139 employees, 102 are machinists in the production department,
and of these 102 machinists, 53% are females, creating a slight discrepancy in the ratio of male
to female employees in the overall organization and the production department.
3

BBs comprise 44% of the organization and MLs make up 14% (Table 1) and in the
production department, which is the focus of this study, 42% are BBs and 13% are MLs. This
demographic breakdown illustrates MatLowe’s currently strong but aging knowledge base in the
organization, specifically in its production department. This large BB population justifies the
concerns MatLowe’s customer base, which is comprised primarily of government contractors,
has voiced about the negative impacts the impending retirement of the BBs over the next ten
years will have on the future services they receive from MatLowe’s nonproduction workers, such
as those in the engineering and sales departments. Although the loss of tribal knowledge from the
BB generation is occurring in both the non-production and production sectors at MatLowe, this
paper will focus on the impact of the retirement of BB machinists in production.

Table 1
Demographics of MatLowe's Employees
Generation Employee percentage composition Year of birth Age range
Gen Z 1.44 Up to 2000 Up to 20
Millennials 14.39 1980–1999 21–40
Gen X 35.97 1965–1979 41–55
Baby boomers 43.88 1946–1964 56–74
Traditionalists 4.32 Up to 1965 75 and over

4

Organizational Performance Goal
Incorporating IKS at MatLowe could increase productivity through a workplace culture
based on learning, increased employee morale, and employee growth. Although some BBs have
mentored a few ML employees to assist with basic prep work, such as cutting parts with saws,
there is little IKS overall at MatLowe. The company’s goal is to develop 100% of its current
MLs into experienced machinists by 2024. As presented in Table 2, since the performance goal
is new for both the organization and the stakeholders, the current performance gap is 100%,
meaning that no current IKS practices exist.

Table 2
Organizational Mission and Organizational Performance Goal
Organizational mission
We will leverage human capital to ensure its business partners’ utmost trust and maintain an
environment that fosters its team members’ professional and personal growth (mission
modified to protect the identity of the organization).
Organizational performance goal
By 2024, MatLowe will train 100% of its current millennial machinists to be experienced
machinists.
Stakeholder performance goal
All the current millennial machinists will be as experienced as the baby boomer machinists.

5

MatLowe’s paraphrased mission statement proposes that MatLowe works to promote
employee growth, morale, and productivity. Employee growth within this context refers to
acquiring skills and knowledge formally and informally to become successful (Chawla et al.,
2017). Morale refers to positive feelings about the workplace culture, other employees, and the
employee’s respective role within the organization (Shen, 2016). Finally, employee productivity
encompasses the facets of both employee growth and morale. Productivity assesses employees'
efficiencies, output within a period, and contribution to organizational goals (Chawla et al.,
2017; Shen, 2016).
Organizational Performance Status and Needs
As MatLowe continues to nurture and foster employee growth, IKS between retiring BBs
and MLs is of interest to the organization. In 2017, Chawla et al. suggested that the
implementation of IKS increases employee productivity and morale. A survey to determine the
interest in KS among MatLowe’s machinists showed that 65% were interested in information
about IKS. However, manufacturing industries are less likely to participate in IKS, as employees
are more concerned with job security and protecting their tribal knowledge (McCallum, 2018).
Low participation in IKS creates a paradigm in which some employees do not share their
knowledge, impeding organizational productivity (McCallum, 2018). Therefore, MatLowe has
set a goal to improve KS among its employees.
Related Literature
Shen (2016) has argued that organizations can create, collect, and share information
through the practice of IKS. Several studies have shown that KS enhances employee growth,
morale, and productivity (Chawla et al., 2017; Shen, 2016). Moreover, Shen (2016) found that
organizations engaged in IKS were more likely to maintain a competitive edge and motivate their
6

employees. However, different generations, like BBs and MLs, are likely to participate in KS
practices in different ways (Pew Research Center, 2018). According to Chawla et al. (2017),
considerable differences exist in the workplace performance of BBs and ML workers, which will
be discussed at length in Chapter 2. BBs tend to be more competitive than their ML counterparts
in terms of skills acquisition and retention of knowledge learned through on-the-job experiences,
leading to a reduction in KS (Chawla et al., 2017). MLs are more apt to share knowledge than
their BB counterparts, but they are also more inclined to share information with others in their
same generation (Chawla et al., 2017; Shen, 2016).
Bratianu and Orzea (2010) examined workers across various organizations and showed
that many employees are hesitant to participate in IKS, often due to concerns over job insecurity
(Bratianu & Orzea, 2010; Webster et al., 2008). In other words, employees are likely to feel
greater job insecurity if they participate in KS (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010). This hesitation towards
KS extends into IKS, even if the organization indicates that job security is likely to increase
through KS efforts (Webster et al., 2008).
Shen (2016) observed how BBs and MLs each shared their knowledge with other
employees in the workplace. BBs were more likely to share knowledge in informal ways through
workplace conversation and shadowing, while MLs were more likely to transfer knowledge
using technological platforms and networking (Schlögl et al., 2018).
Importance of Organizational Innovation
IKS is an organizational innovation that would ensure MatLowe can continue to meet its
customers’ demands over the next five years and beyond. IKS increases productivity, boosts
employee morale, and removes many obstacles related to the lack of knowledge or expertise
(Shen, 2016). Although IKS is practiced routinely in many other business sectors, the
7

manufacturing sector has not adopted it widely because job security is perceived as a threat
associated with IKS (McCallum, 2018).
Through this project, MatLowe can implement IKS, which will result in a new learning
culture in the workplace. With this innovation, employee productivity can increase along with
organizational productivity and output. Additionally, the stakeholder groups, management,
employees, and consumers will all benefit, as IKS is associated with increased employee and
organizational outcomes (Chawla et al., 2017; Shen, 2016).
The Stakeholder Performance Goal
As Table 2 shows, the performance goal of the stakeholders is that current ML machinists
in MatLowe’s production department become as experienced as the BB machinists. By
integrating IKS within the organizational culture, MatLowe’s BB and ML employees would all
understand the power of IKS and its positive effects on them and the organization as a whole.
Specifically, this study examines how both BBs and MLs can be motivated to participate in IKS
and how their perception of job security affects their lack of engagement in these behaviors.
To include MatLowe employees in the strategy to increase production, the human
resources department conducted an open-ended survey. It asked employees whether they felt it
would be better for MatLowe to increase their overtime requirement or if the more experienced
and older workers were willing to cross-train the MLs. A staggering 95% of BBs favored
working overtime because they believed training MLs was a waste of money and time, while
50% of MLs were in favor of cross-training only if MatLowe improved its production
technology. The survey also concluded that BBs felt MLs were more interested in technology,
such as 3D printing and artificial intelligence-powered robotics, and that MLs do not show as
much interest in traditional training as BBs.
8

Based on the same report, BBs think ML worker turnover is too high, so they do not want
to invest time training ML workers only to then lose them. The BBs claim that MLs say that
although the machining profession pays well, it does not offer them professional fulfillment
through a sense of happiness, meaningfulness, self-worth, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. BBs
also report that MLs do not enjoy their respective positions, but that younger workers feel that
machining and sectors like construction are dirty jobs. The overall perception of BBs was that
MLs looked down on the machining profession. The BBs concluded that if they transferred their
knowledge to the MLs, MatLowe would prefer the more technologically advanced MLs with
strong machining skills over BBs who only had only strong machining skills. They did not trust
MatLowe to keep them employed, and they did not trust that MLs would support them by
sharing their technological skills with BBs. As a result, the BBs had no interest in KS.
On the other hand, the MLs who were surveyed said they had not thought about KS and
did not understand it. They enjoyed the technology, such as CNC machining and 3-D printing
technology, and they liked studying other engineering designing software they learned at their
community colleges. The MLs said they looked forward to MatLowe automating its production
department to reduce overtime and increase production to “make more money.”
During break times, MLs and BBs gather in generational clusters inside and outside of
MatLowe’s production areas, communal areas, and the grounds. MLs and BBs rarely intermingle
during breaks unless they are related or were referred to the company by the other. As such, there
is a tendency for each generation to keep to itself.
The current training relating to intergeneration communications is informal among the
machinists. The production leads and management team advance the ranks because of their job
experience and tenure without training, development, and learning. As such, new hires,
9

especially those who have not been in the machine shop environment, often get frustrated with
their unstructured and inconsistent training on conflicting material and choose to leave. With so
many factors that create a separation between BBs and MLs at MatLowe, it is imperative to
develop a better understanding of how to bridge this divide.
This study aims to better understand the differences between the perceptions of KS
among BBs and MLs to explore if the motivational factors to participate in KS are the same for
these two cohorts and to understand if job insecurity will hinder participation in IKS.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are three distinct groups of stakeholders affiliated with MatLowe’s organizational
goals. These include the management of MatLowe, the employees at MatLowe, and the
consumers of products affiliated with MatLowe. First, the management comprises the
chairman/owner, four lead executives, and five ancillary management staff. Better IKS could
improve these management roles. For example, employee knowledge of IKS and their
motivation to participate in IKS may increase.
The second stakeholder group is the employees of MatLowe. MatLowe has around 139
employees, of which 44% are BBs and about 14% are MLs. Generation X (38%), defined as
persons born between 1965 and 1979, fall between the BB and ML cohorts. However,
Generation X will not participate in this study as the focus is on IKS between two groups with
vastly different values and workplace motivations. As Generation X is similar to both BBs and
MLs, the inclusion of this cohort would complicate the study of IKS.
Stakeholder Groups in the Study
While a complete performance evaluation would consider all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, this study focuses on the BB and ML machinists, as shown in Table 3. More
10

specifically, it examines the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in these two
groups’ lived experiences in MatLowe’s production department. The groups were selected as
stakeholders of interest, as they are most proximally affected by the results of this study. First,
two central government primary contractors have expressed their concerns about MatLowe’s
aging production workforce. These customers, as mentioned, are concerned that over the next 15
years, MatLowe will not be able to meet the production, quality, and efficiency levels required
for its customers to meet their commitments to the government. Second, both BB and ML groups
are necessary for IKS to occur (Shen, 2016). Third, IKS, or the lack thereof, impacts both the BB
and ML generations (Shen, 2016). Through IKS, both groups of employees may benefit, and
both will experience negative impacts if their knowledge is not shared (Cropanzano et al., 2017).

Table 3
Demographics of MatLowe’s Production Operations
Generation Production staff percentage composition Year of birth Age range
Gen Z 1.98 Up to 2000 Up to 20
Millennials 12.87 1980–1999 21–40
Gen X 39.60 1965–1979 41–55
Baby boomers 41.58 1946–1964 56–74
Traditionalists 3.96 Up to 1965 75 and over

11

Additionally, as BBs and MLs comprise most of the workforce, achieving the overall
organizational goal depends on the knowledge acquired by these two generational groups. The
research questions for the survey are, therefore: How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing
differ between baby boomers and millennials machinists? How are the motivational factors to
take part in knowledge sharing the same or different for baby boomers and millennials? How is
job insecurity related to participation in IKS? Data were collected and then analyzed to find the
relationship between job insecurity and participation in IKS, and the results from this analysis
informed the stakeholder performance goals, which ask that the current ML machinists in
MatLowe’s production department become as experienced as the BB machinists.
These results show how perceived job insecurity impacts the likelihood of participation in
KS, which is crucial for the successful implementation of IKS. To achieve the stakeholders’
goal, there must be a better understanding of how BBs and MLs perceive KS and whether the
BBs’ motivational influences to participate in KS differ from those of the MLs. If the
organization cannot increase IKS, many of its employees may feel frustrated and decide to quit,
creating unwanted job vacancies and decreasing organizational productivity and overall success.
Demographics of MatLowe’s Production Operations
There are 102 production employees in the stakeholder group at MatLowe who are the
participants for the study. Baby boomers comprise 42% of the production population, while MLs
are an estimated 13% of employees. Through the completion of this study, employee satisfaction
and employee productivity may increase. Finally, the third group of stakeholders is the
consumer. Consumers of products manufactured at MatLowe are in the western United States.
IKS will increase employee and organizational productivity and help customers receive better
products at better prices, aligning with MatLowe’s vision statement.
12

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MatLowe can meet its goal of
training 100% of its current ML machinists in the production department to be as experienced as
its current BB machinists by 2024, as stated in Table 2. The analysis here is based on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the context of the lived experiences of
MLs and BBs at MatLowe.
The series of questions developed to guide this study include:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomers and
millennials machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same or
different for baby boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in IKS?
Overview of Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The conceptual and theoretical framework that underpins this study builds on the work of
Clark and Estes (2008) who developed a modified gap analysis framework, which provides a
structured way to thoroughly examine the potential strengths and weaknesses of an organization
and address all components needed for effective organizational change and sustainable results.
Without a structured framework, the organizational leadership may overlook certain strengths or
miss shortcomings, ultimately implementing ineffective or inappropriate changes. Clark and
Estes explained that organizations need knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO)
influencers to implement real change and to do so effectively. As such, they must examine and
evaluate the KMO influencers.
13

This study presumes that when team members have the knowledge required for optimum
performance, they are motivated to do their work. Without adequate knowledge, motivation
alone does not increase performance. Thus, adequate motivation is necessary but not sufficient
for effective performance. At the organizational level, the older worker must feel that their
knowledge, skills, and abilities are appreciated by the organization to be motivated to share their
knowledge voluntarily by engaging in tacit knowledge transfer (Clark, 2003).
The theoretical framework for this study relies on the social exchange theory, which
Homans (1974) developed by exploring dyadic relationships and psychological behaviors among
individuals in different groups during social interaction. Homans (1974) concluded that there is a
perceived relationship that dictates information exchange within any interaction. In this context,
social exchange theory focuses on IKS among employees (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Serenko &
Bontis, 2016). According to Serenko and Bontis (2016), the social exchange theory can underpin
IKS. BBs and MLs will readily share their knowledge if there is a personal benefit in doing so
and if sharing knowledge will enhance the organization’s success.
The methodological framework employed here is a quantitative causal-comparative
design, which allows for a comparison between different variables of interest. In this case, KMO
influencers amongst BBs and MLs in MatLowe’s production department (Schenker & Rumrill
Jr., 2004) were used to formulate the survey questions. This approach offered a way to explore
the participants’ perceptions through their lived experiences. It also helped answer why
MatLowe’s BB machinists continue to retire and leave the organization with all their tribal
knowledge, leaving inexperienced ML machinists behind, although they are the future of the
production operations. Fifteen BBs and 12 MLs from the production department were recruited
for this study. After meeting the inclusion criteria, the machinists participated in a survey on
14

Qualtrics, an experienced management software. The data from their responses were analyzed
utilizing a causal-comparative design, which was the best approach to use to examine the lived
experiences of the MLs and BBs in a quantitative study. The use of the causal-comparative
design also showed the relationship between the different variables and the strength of the
relationships between them (Schenker & Rumrill Jr., 2004).
Definitions
These emerging key concepts inform my topic by investigating the impact of job
insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists at MatLowe.
 Baby Boomer: A term used to describe the demographic cohort born between 1946 and
1964. As of 2016, 25% of the workforce in the United States (an estimated 78 million
people) identify as baby boomers (Combs, 2016).
 Knowledge: A mix of individual experiences, values, contextual information, and expert
know-how (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
 Intergenerational knowledge sharing: The bidirectional, two-way sharing of experiences,
values, contextual information, and expert knowledge between co-workers of different
generations (Rupčić, 2018).
 Millennial: A term used to describe the cohort of the population born between 1980 and
2000. As of 2018, millennials comprise approximately 28% of the American workforce
(Pew Research Center, 2018).
 Performance: Refers to employee task behaviors that apply to organizational goals. It is
also an indicator of the overall employee value (Sony & Mekoth, 2016).
15

 Tribal Knowledge: Tribal knowledge (also known as tacit knowledge) is any unwritten
information that is known to one person or certain people in the organization but not
commonly known by others in the same organization (Fenoglio et al., 2021).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 has offered information on the background, key themes, and purpose of this
study, along with MatLowe’s mission and goals, and those of its stakeholders. It has also
introduced the key vocabulary needed to understand the central concepts in this study. Chapter 2
provides an in-depth review of the literature, including a discussion of IKS, the BB generation,
and information on MLs. Chapter 3 then describes the methodological approach used, including
the sampling procedures, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 explains the results of the
study, with a brief description of the context, and Chapter 5 then offers solutions to these
organizational problems and recommendations for future research.
16

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter presents an overview of the existing literature on IKS in the organizational
context. It first examines the concept of KS in general before analyzing IKS as a separate entity.
The generational gap (GG) will be the primary focus, specifically between BBs and MLs in the
workforce. The literature review will then discuss the importance of IKS in organizations and its
benefits and challenges before evaluating effective methods and practices and exploring positive
and negative antecedents to IKS in the workplace. Finally, it includes an in-depth analysis using
the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework.
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge transfer (KT) is referenced in this study, but it is essential to clarify how it
differs from knowledge sharing (KS) between generations. KT became an increasingly relevant
research topic in the late 1990s (Mohajan, 2019), and it is a necessary factor of organizational
development and an instrument in the innovation and success of organizations in all fields. While
many studies have explored the subject, there is no single definition for KT. Mohajan (2019)
amalgamated various definitions, stating most simply that KT is the movement of knowledge
from one individual to another, and then adding that it involves knowledge converted into a form
that is understood by others and beneficial to all. Starks (2013) stated that a primary goal of
facilitating KT is “to influence positive work-related outcomes that lead to organizational
consistency, innovation, and sustainability” (p. 226). With the continuous advancement of
knowledge and the progression of society, there is a need to identify ways of transferring
meaningful workplace knowledge.
Knowledge is a term that often refers to data or information gathered over time. In the
organizational or workforce context, knowledge is a process (Starks, 2013). Many researchers
17

consider tacit knowledge (TK), also known as tribal knowledge, to be a necessary type of
knowledge in organizational contexts (Banerjee et al., 2017; Bratianu & Orzea, 2010; Rupčić,
2018; Starks, 2013). TK includes hands-on skills and best practices that are difficult to capture,
formalize, and codify, according to a study by Meher and Mahajan (2018). This lack of
documentation method makes TK challenging to share and communicate with others. Most
importantly, an explicit integration system cannot replace TK (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010).
As BBs continue to retire and MLs replace them, organizations need to identify ways to
transfer TK across all fields and disciplines (Starks, 2013). Starks (2013) challenges
organizational leaders and their employees to create an environment that fosters the synthesis,
documentation, and transfer of relevant knowledge. TK is the continuous sharing of knowledge
that could ensure organizational sustainability in the future (Zairi & Whymark, 2000).
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer
Intergenerational knowledge transfer (IKT) differs slightly from KT in that it facilitates
the interaction of generations that possess different knowledge, characteristics, and learning
habits (Gerpott et al., 2017; Rupčić, 2018). Xin and Xiaoying (2010) elaborated on IKT,
identifying specific differences between IKS and general KS. Most notably, they evaluated the
content of the knowledge transferred and the modes in which the knowledge was shared (Xin &
Xiaoying, 2010). Regarding the shared content, IKT considers knowledge to be a dynamic
process of cognition and general KT situates knowledge as a more static result of cognition. In
other words, the knowledge transferred across generations is more commonly tacit knowledge, or
that which accumulates with time and experience. General KT more likely includes technical
knowledge. Leaders “value knowledge as elements, rather than as a process” (Xin & Xiaoying,
2010, p. 501).
18

Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing (KS) is a fundamental channel through which an employee can
contribute to the competitive advantage of an organization (Jackson et al, 2006). Researchers
concluded that KS allowed individuals and teams to exploit and capitalize on their collective
knowledge-based resources (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Damodaran & Olphert, 2000; Davenport
& Prusak, 1998). Knowledge sharing refers to providing task information and know-how to
assist others and collaborate for problem-solving, developing new ideas, or implementing
policies or procedures (Cummings, 2004).
Intergenerational Knowledge Sharing
Intergenerational knowledge sharing (IKS) involves an interaction between the
knowledge giver and the knowledge receiver. In contrast, general KT is simply a transfer from
one source to another (Xin & Xiaoying, 2010). Efforts from both groups that partake in IKS are
necessary for such an interaction to take place. Not only do older workers need to be willing to
share their knowledge, but ML workers must want to listen, and vice versa (Wang et al., 2017).
IKS exposes different generations to each other and works to disprove implicitly held beliefs one
generation may hold of the other (Gerpott et al., 2017).
This review focuses on two generations: BBs and MLs. Throughout an employee’s time
in the workforce, he or she will typically move up through the ranks of management. With this
increase in authority, responsibilities shift from improving the organization's daily operations to
educating junior employees on how to do so (Macpherson et al., 2018). Currently, the employees
in the upper management of organizations are BBs. As they were born between 1946 and 1964,
they will retire over the next decade, leaving MLs to take over their positions. MLs will be
among the junior employees rising in the ranks of many organizations. Behie and Henwood
19

(2018) concluded that by 2025, 75% of the workforce will be MLs. The imminent transition
from one experienced generation to another, which is no less knowledgeable but is just
beginning to understand its place in the workforce, requires an emphasis on the transfer of
knowledge from one generation to another.
Baby Boomers: Definition, Characteristics, Generational Effects
The first generation studied here is the BBs, who were born between 1946 and 1964. BBs
are the largest generation in U.S. history, with approximately 78 million Americans born in this
generation. As of 2016, BBs make up around 25% of the workforce in the United States (Combs,
2016). Additionally, they hold the most influential leadership positions over the other
generations that remain in the workforce (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008).
Baby boomers are identified by their dedication and hard work (Cennamo & Gardner,
2008) and are considered to have live-to-work attitudes. BBs view their jobs as a central part of
their legacies and prioritize them over other aspects of their lives, such as family (Weeks et al.,
2017). As a result, BBs are often very loyal to their organizations (Teng et al., 2018; Weeks et
al., 2017). They are often characterized as driven, optimistic, self-motivated, and team-oriented
(Behie & Henwood, 2018; Teng et al., 2018). Notably, BBs mark the generation when women
began to work outside of the home and in positions traditionally held by men (Behie &
Henwood, 2018). BBs are also considered to exhibit patience, respect for hierarchy and tradition,
and a focus on traditional work models (Bencsik & Machova, 2016; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008).
Among the most commonly recognized attributes of BBs is their lack of technological
ability (Mihailidis et al., 2010). As a result, BBs prefer face-to-face communication over e-mail
or social media usage (Weeks et al., 2017). However, studies have found that other generations
tend to exaggerate BBs’ dislike of technology (LeRouge et al., 2014; Mihailidis et al., 2010).
20

While BBs are more likely to acknowledge the adverse effects of technology, such as the
reduced communicative skill development in ML workers, there is often an assumption that this
equals an utter dislike of anything related to technology (Weeks et al., 2017). Lester et al. (2012)
concluded that BBs reported valuing technology more than other generations believe they do, as
other generations believe that BBs value structure and authority (Lester et al., 2012.
BBs in the United States are retiring from all sectors at a rate of 10,000 people a day
(Gordon, 2014). This rate has doubled over the past eight years and can be expected to continue
to increase until the last of the BBs reach retirement age, 65 on average, around 2030 (Gordon,
2014). Gordon estimated that in 2020, about 70 million will disappear from the workforce. The
considerable loss to the modern workforce will cause a historic economic imbalance, with
significant economic, social, and policy-related consequences (Combs, 2016).
Millennials: Definition, Characteristics, Generational Effects
The second group of workers analyzed in this study belongs to the millennial (ML)
generation, otherwise referred to as Generation Y. These terms describe the population born
between 1980 and 2000. In the United States, they are the most diverse generation in terms of
ethnicity and race (Jayadeva, 2018). Studies estimate them to be the largest generational group to
have entered the workforce (Calk & Patrick, 2017). As of 2018, MLs comprise approximately
28% of the American workforce (Pew Research Center, 2018). However, Behie and Henwood
(2018) expect that 75% of the workforce will be MLs by 2025.
The work ethic of many MLs differs from that of previous generations. MLs are often
perceived to be egotistical and arrogant (Bencsik & Machova, 2016). They are thought to expect
instant gratification and constant feedback and prefer to control others and their environments
(Williams et al., 2017). Most people perceive MLs as emphasizing a work-life balance and
21

keeping their work life and personal life separate (Behie & Henwood, 2018). Studies have also
analyzed more specific aspects of MLs. For example, Rupčić (2018) classified intergenerational
differences into categories of focus, behavior, approach, and communication style. Rupčić
(2018) then characterized MLs as emphasizing the job context (focus), showing often scattered
behavior (behavior), being short-term goal-oriented (approach), and showing a disregard for
organizational hierarchy (communication).
One of the commonly assumed attributes of MLs is that they have a short-term-oriented
mindset. Researchers found that MLs often do not invest a significant amount of time in
understanding the principles or operations of organizations because they expect to move on to
another organization rather quickly (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Jayadeva, 2018; Rupčić, 2018).
This perceived “job hopper” attitude (Jayadeva, 2018) is sometimes attributed to their short
attention spans, developed from growing up in an age of fast-paced technology and social media
(Rupčić, 2018). However, while they may not show an extraordinary commitment to their
organizations, MLs are considered to be more loyal to a specific leader or group (Do et al.,
2018). Moreover, MLs evolve as they grow older and acquire more experience, and they can
develop more substantial organizational commitments over time (Buckley et al., 2015).
Additional perceived ML tendencies include experimenting with and comparing new and
different systems in hopes of gaining new knowledge, communicating with others to gather
information, and treating co-workers and peers in an unusually informal manner (Bencsik &
Machova, 2016; Rupčić, 2018). In doing so, others may consider MLs to be lazy, entitled to
benefits, and unreliable. These assumed and erroneously generalized tendencies cause other
generations to form negative views of MLs, as they tend to disapprove of practices that differ
from their norm (Williams et al., 2017). However, it is essential to acknowledge that while MLs
22

are relatively newer to the workforce, the qualities they bring to the table can be incredibly
beneficial to organizations. For example, they show great entrepreneurial spirit and can leverage
their exposure from other environments to help broaden and diversify their colleagues and the
organization (Rupčić, 2018). Additionally, although they are considered to expect constant praise
and recognition, this may be because MLs need a sense of belonging and self-actualization to be
motivated (Calk & Patrick, 2017).
To further understand MLs in the workforce, researchers have studied the learning and
leadership preferences that accompany their characteristics and work ethics. Hadar (2015)
conducted a study about the learning preferences of MLs in the workforce and, while much of
the findings were consistent with other literature regarding MLs’ preference for technology and
social networking, Hadar (2015) drew a few surprising conclusions. For example, although older
generations prefer traditional training methods such as face-to-face interaction, MLs rated such
methods higher than BBs in this study. This discrepancy suggests that the preferences of MLs in
the workforce may be contingent on the workplace environment. The researcher gives an
example of this, explaining that employees of highly technical organizations may prefer
traditional training methods due to the importance of tacit knowledge in their skill-building. As
mentioned previously, tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and codify, making it much more
challenging to teach or share via technology or remote interaction (Hadar, 2015).
This study aims to research the GG specific to the manufacturing industry. In an
interview with Jonathan Samples (2018), generations’ expert David Stillman explained that
MLs’ fixation on the “bigger picture” could cause them to lack interest in the manufacturing
industry. With the diminished emphasis in schools and society on the value of manufacturing
23

positions, MLs do not consider this industry to offer a way to fulfill their desires. They expect
passion and more profound meaning to attract them to a job and to keep them engaged.
MLs are the largest generational group ever to enter the workforce. There are 80 million
MLs in the workforce as compared to BBs, who number 76 million (Taylor, 2014). However,
MLs are the most challenging group to recruit and retain (Calk & Patrick, 2017). Employers and
older workers must often cater to the preferences of MLs, and recruiters must consider attributes
such as workplace flexibility, state-of-the-art equipment, learning, and mentoring opportunities
in the organization when recruiting MLs (Behie & Henwood, 2018).
The Manufacturing Industry
The manufacturing industry is a massive contributor to the U.S. economy and is
responsible for over 10% of the national gross domestic product (GDP) and over 8% of the
employed population in the United States (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018).
Additionally, for every dollar in output from the manufacturing industry, another $1.89 of value
is generated (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018). Every job in the industry creates 2.5
more jobs in the U.S. economy (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018). While these
contributions have long helped advance the economy, their impact on the industry itself is
becoming a concern. In recent years, the number of open manufacturing jobs has exceeded the
number of people looking for work. Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute (2018) reported that
as of August 2018, 508,000 jobs were available in the industry. Further analysis concluded that
between 2018 and 2028, an estimated 2.4 million positions might be left unfilled. This figure
comes from the addition of an expected 2.69 million retirements and 1.96 million new jobs due
to natural growth, minus only 2.2 million jobs that are likely to be filled (Deloitte & The
Manufacturing Institute, 2018).
24

The major contributing factors to this shortage are shifting skillsets due to technological
advancements, negative perceptions of the manufacturing industry, and BB retirements (Deloitte
& The Manufacturing Institute, 2018). Other studies cite similar outdated observations and
concerns about the industry’s relative health and future industry (O’Brien, 2018). It is also
common to blame the skills gap in the U.S. education system for claiming that students are not
introduced to or taught the skills necessary to work in the manufacturing industry alongside other
STEM-related fields (McGunagle & Zizka, 2020). Education has moved away from any
significant focus on developing manufacturing skills, and manufacturing companies have failed
to compensate for the lack of interest in their field. To counterbalance the decrease in exposure
and interest in schools, manufacturing companies need to allocate additional resources to
recruiting and training new workers (Sirkin et al., 2013).
Many new practices need to be introduced, developed, and implemented by organizations
in the manufacturing industry to address the skills gap. Such practices include expanding and
developing the necessary skills among ML workers, to compensate for the retiring BB generation
over the next decade. The essential skills that need to increase significantly within the sector are
technology and computer skills, digital skills, programming skills, tool usage and technology
skills, and critical-thinking skills (Wellener, 2019). To ensure that young professionals,
especially MLs in the industry, learn these skills, other, older, more experienced workers like
BBs need to share their knowledge. This IKS is essential throughout the entirety of the
workforce and especially within the manufacturing industry. To develop effective IKS practices,
we must first understand the characteristics of both generations. MatLowe’s leaders must
understand the “why” behind the values and identify the “how” of IKS to implement it
effectively.
25

The Effects of Generational Differences
These differences between the perceived character attributes and work ethics between
BBs and MLs have led to a sizeable GG in the workplace today. It is essential to analyze these
attributes, which manifest in the workplace through work habits and personal goals, and to
develop an understanding of how machinists of different ages value “leadership, communication,
problem-solving, decision making, and work/life balance” (McNally, 2017, p. 82). Often, the
experiences during their respective formidable years influence each generation's attitudes, values,
and beliefs (McNally, 2017; Starks, 2013). Their formidable years are strongly influenced by
their reception of knowledge through the same generation and from IKT and IKS (Starks, 2013).
The BB generation was the most widely discussed in the United States before MLs came
along (Jayadeva, 2018). The two cohorts are similar in that way; they both possess commonly
recognizable values and traits that distinguish them as a group. With such solidified norms,
which show only slight variances throughout each generation, the collision of both generations in
the workforce is bound to cause upheaval. The question regards the impact of the upheaval of
IKS between BBs and MLs (Jayadeva, 2018).
The GG between BBs and MLs affects certain aspects of the workplace. For example,
each generation prefers a different method and technique of communication. While BBs are
accustomed to formal communication, MLs prefer constant, efficient, and informal contact
(Behie & Henwood, 2018). Hadar (2015) found that BBs prefer the following communication
methods: face-to-face, phone calls, personal interaction, and structured networking. On the
contrary, MLs tend to prefer text messages and collaborative interaction. It is no surprise that
MLs prefer to work closely with technology and social media; they were raised in an
26

environment where advanced technology and constant contact via social networking is the norm.
Therefore, they perform best with these resources (Hadar, 2015).
Another notable generational difference is in the attitudes toward their lives and careers.
Behie and Henwood (2018) explained that BBs built their lives around their jobs, while MLs
have flipped this by tailoring their careers to suit the lifestyles they want. There is a perception
that MLs lack loyalty and commitment to their organizations (Behie & Henwood, 2018).
Jayadeva (2018) also references the “live to work” versus “work to live” phenomenon (p. 35).
While researchers consider this to be MLs’ way of doing minimal work for a nine-to-five job,
they may be pushing against the increasingly blurred line between work and home (Behie &
Henwood, 2018; Williams et al., 2017). It is necessary for an overworked and underpaid
profession to ensure fair labor practices and acceptable job satisfaction in the machining
industry. As job satisfaction can affect a machinist’s participation and performance, and willing
participation is necessary for effective IKT, respecting and understanding the tendencies of MLs
and BBs should be a top priority among organization leaders and managers.
Regarding IKS, there are differences in each generation’s methods and preferences
towards KS. A study by Burmeister et al. (2019) found that younger workers like MLs value
being knowledge receivers and older workers like BBs prefer to be the ones sharing their
knowledge with other employees. In contrast, Chawla et al. (2017) reported that individuals in
the ML cohort are more apt to share knowledge than their BB counterparts. However, MLs are
often more likely to share information with others from the same generation (Chawla et al.,
2017; Shen, 2016). Shen (2016) found differences in the ways BBs and MLs are more likely to
share knowledge with other machinists. BBs are more likely to share knowledge in informal
ways through workplace conversation and shadowing, while MLs were more likely to transfer
27

knowledge using technological platforms and networking (Schlögl et al., 2018). Taking
advantage of these findings could aid in the implementation of an IKS program.
Some studies conclude that the differences between BBs and MLs are fewer than
believed. Cennamo and Gardner (2008) were surprised to find fewer gaps in work values than
expected between the two generations. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize the differences in
characteristics among generations. Understanding the similarities and differences between BBs
and MLs can provide managers and leading professionals with the necessary information to
address workplace diversity and meet their employees’ needs. Additionally, developing effective
communication in the organization among all generations will promote productive IKS between
BBs and MLs.
The Benefits of IKS
When implemented correctly, IKS can be beneficial to an organization and its machinists.
It strengthens an organization’s operational culture and, in the most profound sense, aids in
transforming the “organization’s very DNA” (Macpherson et al., 2018, p. 41). According to
Bratianu and Orzea (2010), “the principle equation is: better and purposeful sharing of useful
knowledge translates into accelerated individual and organizational learning and innovation
through the development of better products that are brought faster to a target market, thus
enhancing market performance” (p. 108). This equation highlights how KS can benefit an entire
organization. Collaboration amongst machinists of different age groups benefits the machinists
and the organization as a whole, whether internally or externally. The stronger the internal
processes, the more efficient the machinists and the better their performance.
Levine and Prietula (2012) cite multiple sources that identify the following benefits of
KS on organizations: the spread of best practices, organizational learning, innovation, and
28

improved performance. These are consistent with the findings of Crhová et al. (2018), who also
reported benefits such as innovation and increased financial performance, more robust
communication and co-worker relationship, and source optimization. A broader benefit of KS
includes improving organizational performance, which can, in turn, lead to increased
organizational competitiveness (Mohajan, 2019). More specifically, Shen (2016) found that KS
can increase productivity, boost employee morale, and remove many obstacles related to the lack
of knowledge or ability.
Additionally, IKS benefits the performance of machinists, although leaders often tend to
overlook this. However, with further and more advanced knowledge, machinists can often work
more efficiently and effectively (Crhová et al., 2018). Increased performance can lead to added
financial compensation or other forms of reward. The new knowledge gained can also aid
machinists in their future endeavors, whether they move to new organizations or up the ranks of
their current workplace (Crhová et al., 2018). Malik and Kanwal (2018) found that
organizational KS practices positively influenced job satisfaction through the mediating roles of
learning commitment and interpersonal ability.
These benefits are just a summary of the positive impact IKS can have on an
organization. Its ability to create and promote organizational performance and longevity shows
why it is essential in the organizational context. Macpherson et al. (2018) effectively highlight
this by saying, “The shift from managed employee to manager becomes the vehicle for
organizational sustainability as workplace knowledge and understanding sharings from one
generation to the next” (pp. 32–33). IKS is necessary to an organization, as it contributes to the
organization’s durability.
29

Challenges That Yield the Benefits of IKS
In a sense, KS is considered a form of self-sacrifice. The knowledge giver often receives
no direct reward for their efforts; it is more common for individuals to be enthusiastic about
receiving knowledge rather than sharing it (Liu & Liu, 2019). Mohajan (2019) lists multiple
barriers to KS in organizations, including lack of trust, inadequate leadership, and, most notably,
the unwillingness of experienced employees. This reluctance of skilled employees such as BBs
to participate in KS can stem from a lack of motivation and effort to share their knowledge
(Mohajan, 2019). This lack of motivation results from their awareness of the MLs’ negative
perceptions. If the BBs do not feel that their knowledge is valued, they may not be willing to
share their knowledge with ML employees (Śledź, 2016).
Additionally, among the most common reasons individuals that possess the knowledge to
share hesitate to do so is due to the perceived lack of job security. They believe that once they
share their knowledge and experience, their corporate position and power within the organization
will weaken (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010). Śledź (2016) further supports this finding and states that
older workers fear they will no longer be of use to the organization after they share their
knowledge.
While some workers worry they will lose value to the organization, others fear losing
power. This aspect of their reluctance to share knowledge stems from selfishness (Bratianu &
Orzea, 2010). They desire the recognition from colleagues and peers that accompanies the
possession of such knowledge and therefore wish to keep the knowledge to themselves (Bratianu
& Orzea, 2010). Śledź (2016) adds that mature workers fear losing power once they share their
knowledge, as study participants expressed the belief that they deserve to hold a position of
power because of their long-term experience and extensive knowledge.
30

Worker habits and attitudes can also affect the success of KS. Śledź (2016) explains that
older workers are less likely to work well on a team, which serves as a barrier to KS. BBs tend to
have lower levels of interpersonal skills than ML workers due to past individual-centered work
experience. Teamwork is an essential factor in work organization and therefore impacts KS
within an organization. Sedighi et al. (2018) found in their study that KS at the group level is
most effective compared to the private and the public levels.
Śledź (2016) also identified the significant language gap that exists between generations
in the workplace. Successful communication is essential to effective KS; however, the lack of
understanding of each other’s languages provides a substantial barrier. Older BBs reported that
they struggle to understand the language of MLs, notably their unique use of some English terms
that are sometimes only understood by their peers. On the contrary, ML and less experienced
workers cited difficulty in understanding the BBs’ technical jargon. Potential methods of
improving intergenerational communication include encouraging questions for clarification and
precision and showing empathy in understanding the viewpoints of machinists of different
generations (Śledź, 2016). More broadly, providing a space for informal knowledge exchange
can foster an environment that welcomes contributions from all levels and generations.
There are additional barriers to KS at the individual and organizational levels. On an
individual level, challenges can arise due to BBs’ resistance to change. Whether the fear stems
from past negative experiences or the negative perceptions mentioned above, BBs will not be
inclined to share their knowledge if they feel it could change the organization or their specific
position. Śledź (2016) recommends that organizations treat IKS as an ambitious challenge and
make BBs and other older workers aware that it can elevate their status in the organization, to
make them more likely to participate in such practices. Additionally, Bratianu and Orzea (2010)
31

found that barriers to successful KS can include ineffective communication within the
organization and the organization’s willingness, or lack thereof, to invest in its employees.
MatLowe must establish a productive KS process. Organizations must be open-minded and
accommodating when working with multiple generations of workers. MLs are likely to have
innovative ideas that can contribute significantly to an organization that is willing to listen.
However, if MLs feel that an organization is not open to what they have to say, they may leave
(Samples, 2018). Many industries are currently battling a lack of interest in their work and face
challenges filling open positions, so deterring potential employees is counterproductive.
Retaining long-time employees is equally essential to ensure continued organizational
sustainability. By identifying these common barriers to IKS, leaders must find practical
recommendations on how to implement KS strategies and methods.
Effective KS Examples and Practices
It is important to consider previously researched methods and practices and to
acknowledge that developing and implementing a successful KS system is often challenging.
Galbraith (1990) reported that nearly one-third of organizations’ attempts to share knowledge
fail. Crhová et al. (2018) expressed that to help ensure newly implemented KS strategies
succeed, an organization must engage the people directly affected by the changes.
There are many studies on the most effective strategies and methods for KS. For
example, Kim et al. (2016) argued that social networking sites could be an excellent channel to
facilitate KS. However, it is essential to note that IKS differs slightly from general KS because it
must accommodate all ages and competency levels. According to Kim et al. (2016), KS through
social networking sites may not be as practical due to older generations' lack of familiarity with
32

the platforms. Instead, the practices must be achievable and accessible to all generations in the
workforce today.
Additionally, a common barrier that prevents older workers, including BBs, from
willingly sharing their knowledge with MLs is the concern that the organization will no longer
need them after they share their knowledge with others (Śledź, 2016). To eliminate this fear,
organizations can express their “climate of trust” by placing a particular emphasis on qualities
like a long-term commitment to effective communication, mutual respect and support, and the
fair treatment of employees (Śledź, 2016, p. 65). These attributes make an environment that
supports KS possible.
Each of these practices contributes significantly to successful IKS practices. Moreover,
organizations benefit from this collection of researched strategies. The following sections will
elaborate on more specific systems and models studied in the research to this point.
Positive Antecedents to IKS
Antecedents to IKS offer the necessary infrastructure to improve the effectiveness of
certain KS practices on an organization and its performance. The organizational and network
level can categorize positive antecedents of IKS. Organizational-level characteristics include job
autonomy, organizational culture, and leadership style. Network-level characteristics include co-
worker support and interpersonal trust. The following sections explore each of these
characteristics in greater detail.
Organizational-Level Characteristics of Positive Antecedents
There are antecedents to IKS at the organizational level. IKS is a significant contributor
to an organization’s continued success and longevity (Gillani et al., 2018; Han, 2018; Hsu, 2008;
33

Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). Identifying the organizational characteristics and enabling factors
that foster KS sharing can aid organizations in their effective knowledge management.
Organizational Culture (OC)
Schmidt and Muehlfeld (2017) cite research that recognizes organizational culture (OC)
to be an antecedent of IKS. OC refers to an organization’s beliefs and values, which are often
founded on organizational behavior. Frequently, this consists of multiple aspects, including a
supportive OC and learning culture. Wang et al. (2017) concluded that an intergenerational
climate enhances IKS. In other words, the level of trust and honesty within an organization and
the formal strategies and practices implemented by an organization prove vital to IKS. Munir and
Beh (2019) confirmed this finding, as they also concluded that OC positively affects the success
of KS.
Hsu (2008) found that organizational strategy and top management knowledge values
were antecedents to KS practices. Organizational knowledge is crucial to the organization’s
competitive advantage. Therefore, the techniques used to share organizational knowledge depend
significantly on an organization’s strategy for competitive advantage. Additionally, the upper-
level management of an organization is critical, as it plays a role in the OC. If the OC
emphasizes KS, implementing such practices is more likely to be effective (Hsu, 2008).
Job Autonomy
Schmidt and Muehlfeld (2017) identified job autonomy as an organizational antecedent
to IKS. Job autonomy refers to the opportunity machinists have to individually plan and manage
their work (Oldham et al 1976). In summarizing the existing literature on job autonomy, Schmidt
and Muehlfeld (2017) highlighted that job autonomy can increase work motivation and job
satisfaction, increasing the likelihood of participation in IKS practices.
34

Leadership Characteristics
Numerous studies note the importance of upper-level management and leaders in
implementing effective IKS practices (Crhová et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). McNally (2017)
stated that a good leader must be adaptable, possess common goals, and avoid stereotypes to
manage a multigenerational organization successfully. McNally also recommends that
multigenerational team leaders “develop a culture that encourages all generations to make their
optimal contribution” (p. 26). In doing so, the GG can begin to close, and IKS can become a
regular practice.
IKS is a form of exchange between two different generations. The barriers to successful
IKS arise when BB workers try to share their tacit knowledge with inexperienced MLs. As a
result, examining the leadership characteristics that younger workers, in this case, MLs, respond
to positively is paramount. Jayadeva (2018) notes that MLs look for a leader to inspire them and
lead by example. Additionally, studies have found that empowering leadership styles are often
successful in improving IKS. Shared power results in the high intrinsic motivation of employees
(Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). Studies have also cited the significance of intrinsic motivation in
KS (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010; Wu & Lee, 2020). One such leadership style that involves
empowerment is transformational leadership. Multiple studies have analyzed the relationship
between transformational leadership and KS (Han et al., 2016; Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017; Wu
& Lee, 2020).
Transformational leadership involves transforming employees’ values and attitudes to
motivate them to work for the organization’s betterment rather than for themselves. On the
employee side, it often involves having a high degree of respect for the leader, which manifests
in trust, job satisfaction, and which results in job security (Luo et al., 2019): “Transformational
35

leaders promote an organizational culture that motivates employees to participate in
organizational development” (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013, p. 44). IKS is a significant
contributor to organizational development, so transformational leadership most impacts KS and
brings a feeling of value to the organization (Luo et al., 2019). It is important to note that while
the studies cited in this literature review found a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and KS, Wu and Lee (2020) found no significant relationship between the two
elements.
A study by Cox (2016) analyzed the preferred leadership characteristics of different
generations to find the best leadership styles. The following characteristics were identified as
“critically important” or “very important” by over 75% of BB participants: “considers the ethical
consequences of decision; leads by example; has a vision of the future; goes beyond self-interest
for the good of the group and shows appreciation for each person’s contribution to the
organization.” On the other hand, the characteristics rated “not important” included: “encourages
coordination only with people or organizations most impacted by the activity or decision;
provides in-depth job or assignment instructions; and advocates social or environmental
responsibilities as part of decision making” (Cox, 2016, p. 174). Overall, the study concluded
that BBs wanted a solid and ethical leadership to lead by their shared organizational vision and
one that allows their independence in the workplace.
The following characteristics were identified as “critically important” or “very important”
by over 75% of ML participants: “leads by example; is approachable; has a vision of the future;
considers the ethical consequences of a decision and shows appreciation for each person’s
contribution to the organization.” For MLs, the characteristics rated “less important” included:
“encourages coordination only with people or organizations most impacted by the activity or
36

decision; encourages diversity of backgrounds within the organization such as experience, race,
gender, education, and age; and provides in-depth job or assignment instructions” (Cox, 2016, p.
22). In summary, the study concluded that MLs value a leader that will give them personal
attention and support. Notably, of the multiple leadership characteristics tested, BBs and MLs
differed significantly on the topic of “considers the ethical consequences of decisions,” which
BBs considered more important. Additionally, MLs valued the characteristic “is a mentor, coach,
and teacher” more than BBs (Cox, 2016, p. 23).
We must continue to study the most effective leadership attributes to implement KS
practices. Śledź (2016), in a study that explored the reasons for resistance to KS among mature
workers, reported that many participants cited a lack of leadership and proper support for the
“accumulation, retention, development, application, and sharing of knowledge” (p. 66). Śledź
(2016) cited autocratic leadership behaviors as ineffective in motivating others to share their
knowledge. Śledź also suggested that emphasizing an appreciation for KS and its benefits on
effective management may influence higher-level leaders to incorporate knowledge management
practices in the general business strategy (Śledź, 2016).
Network-Level Characteristics of Positive Antecedents
Additional antecedents of KS exist at the network level. These are found within the
interactions and relationships of employees and are common to all organizations. Building an
environment that calls for trust and support among co-workers is essential in developing
successful KS practices among multiple generations.
A factor that can enhance IKS is the trust level among co-workers (Behie & Henwood,
2018; Bratianu & Orzea, 2010; Burmeister et al., 2018; Muhammad et al., 2019). There needs to
be a moderately high level of trust in another person who is willing to share their knowledge and
37

experience. If there is a concern about the misuse of knowledge, an effective exchange of
information will not occur. On the other hand, the knowledge receiver must trust the knowledge
giver to ensure that the knowledge shared is correct and credible (Behie & Henwood, 2018).
Along with trust in their fellow employees, workers must have a high level of trust in the
organization. Schmidt and Muehlfeld (2017) comment on this further, explaining that many older
workers believe sharing their knowledge will make them less of an asset to the organization
because others now possess the same capabilities. Inversely, those who receive the knowledge
may be concerned that asking for information will draw attention to their lack of knowledge and
reduce their value to the organization. To combat these beliefs, an organization and its personnel
must work to create an environment that fosters trust and acceptance among its entire community
of workers. Disproving these negative perceptions will then allow for adequate IKS throughout
the organization.
Additionally, trust among employees ensures practical cooperation and communication
within an organization. Starks (2013) opined that an antecedent to KS is effective
communication exchanges in interpersonal occurrences. Mutual understanding is perhaps one of
the most important facilitators for fostering exchange between generations, along with empathy
and altruism. Maier (2011), found that a lack of cooperation among personnel and knowledge
management teams is a leading factor in the failure of many KS systems. Likewise, a sense of
support among co-workers in an organization is an essential antecedent to KS. When employees
feel supported in the organization, they are more willing to share and exchange knowledge
(Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017).
38

Practical IKS Systems
The current research includes multiple studies that focus on effective systems of IKS that
are currently being implemented. Goleniowska and Kołodziej (2020) researched an organization
that had identified a lack of IKS. With older workers dominating the staff, the organization
recognized the need for these older generation workers to train the younger workers, mostly
MLs, to ensure continued success. They implemented a technical competence program with the
goal of “ensuring knowledge sharing from retiring older workers, and support for continuity of
knowledge in the context of generational exchange” (Goleniowska & Kołodziej, 2020, pp. 12–
13). The program consisted of several evaluative measures to diagnose the participants’
competence levels, followed by the appointment of “experts” to run training. Finally, it resulted
in an in-house training and development program. A satisfaction survey found that 94% of the
study participants found the program helpful, and 85% reported seeing improved skills with their
program (Goleniowska & Kołodziej, 2020).
Additionally, the program improved the motivation and commitment of the employees.
Overall, it served as an effective response to the challenge of retaining technical knowledge
specific to the market and the organization. It provided young professionals with an opportunity
to hone in and learn new skills and guaranteed peace of mind for aging employees who could
then retire knowing their lifetime of work and projects would be left in capable hands.
A study by Hudson (2020) identified five common themes apparent in KS strategies:
“cross-training, after-action reviews, right seat riding, job shadowing, and surveying” (p. 441).
First, “cross-training” in the organizational context involves learning skills from co-workers who
contribute to the organization differently, whether it be in a different functional role, a separate
department, or more. “After-action reviews,” a concept that originated from the military, consists
39

of learning-focused discussions aimed at analyzing success and identifying areas for potential
improvement. This fosters open discussion and provides opportunities for those reluctant to
engage in more direct KS to contribute to organizational knowledge management. The third
theme identified by Hudson (2020) was right-seat riding. This strategy is perhaps the most
effective in the process of transitioning employees.
Another theme of the research was job shadowing, a standard method used throughout
the workforce. After an outgoing employee shows the incoming employee what their job will
consist of, the outgoing employee observes the new employee performing these responsibilities.
The strategy enables a new employee to work alongside another more experienced employee to
gain knowledge that will help their personal development in their current role. Although this is
widely practiced, less than half of the study’s participants viewed job shadowing as a successful
knowledge-sharing method. Finally, surveying is common and is used to extract knowledge from
workers that can improve the organization. Organizations use surveying to identify deficiencies
in employee knowledge; however, it is not effective in sharing tacit knowledge. It is challenging
to establish a relationship between BBs and MLs.
Models of IKS
Kuyken et al. (2018) identify eight IKS practices. The first is integrating/completing and
has been used at an organization in Germany. The practice is a traditional IKS method and
involves pairing one junior employee with one senior employee. The pair develops a relationship
that consists of mentoring, coaching, and supporting the ML employees throughout their time
with the organization. At the German company, mentoring begins when the ML employee first
enters the organization. Knowledge acquisition is a collective responsibility and, therefore, an
essential aspect of organizational management. The integrating/completing practice aims to
40

“expand organizational and collective knowledge according to existing organizational standards”
(Kuyken et al., 2018. p. 11).
Another method Kuyken et al. (2018) identified was consulting/tinkering. These practices
are used in short-term situations and are often the result of the rapid career changes and varying
professional trajectories of young workers. Consulting/tinkering practices involve an ML worker
identifying an area or topic they desire to learn more about and approaching an older worker for
knowledge on said topic. This method allows the ML knowledge receivers to develop multiple
types of knowledge.
Additional practices listed by Kuyken et al. (2018) are mixed forms of
integrating/completing and consulting/thinking, and include calculating, locating, exploring,
solving, leaving a trail, and supporting/orienting. Calculating practices are similar to
consulting/thinking in the sense that they are short-term oriented and involve the sharing of
specialized knowledge. They begin when young workers are interested in a specific type of
knowledge for their gain. Locating involves ML workers developing a network of senior
employees that can act as mentors and inspiration. Exploring practices can be seen in ML
workers who are building a foundation of knowledge and therefore seek KS from professionals
in different specializations (Kuyken et al., 2018; Rupčić, 2018). Solving practices are fast-paced
due to time pressures. These particular exchanges are efficient for older workers, as they can
quickly identify their experiences and turn them into a lesson. However, solving practices are not
an effective way to share tacit knowledge and, therefore, do not always result in relevant or
applicable information. Leaving a trail refers to practices that accompany the retirement of a
senior employee. They often consist of the creation of training and documentation along with
knowledge mapping for their successors. This practice also makes it challenging to share tacit
41

knowledge, as there is little to no interaction between the BB and ML employee. Finally,
supporting/orienting practices involve a BB's quick pairing with an ML employee to help
navigate their integration process. This method allows for an excellent sharing of tacit
knowledge (Kuyken et al., 2018, p. 26).
Kuyken et al. (2018) concluded that, of these eight IKS practices, completing/integrating
and supporting/orienting are the most effective in sharing tacit knowledge between generations.
They advised organizational leaders to consider branching out from increasingly ineffective
methodologies of leaving a trail to consider developing KS practices that involve
multigenerational interactions. This in-depth study provides insight into which methods of KS
are most effective. Field leaders and professionals can then use them to implement innovative
IKS systems (Kuyken et al., 2018, p. 6).
Negative Antecedents of IKS
Scholars have researched negative antecedents to IKS less than those with a positive
influence (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). It is essential to evaluate the factors that enable IKS and
identify specific barriers to IKS in the workplace. Again, there are organizational and network-
level characteristics of antecedents. On an organizational level, perceived age discrimination can
be a common barrier to KS. Similarly, age stereotypes and other age-related conflicts are
negative antecedents to IKS on a network level. The following sections discuss these in greater
detail.
Organizational-Level Characteristics of Negative Antecedents
As stated previously, organizational-level antecedents are essential to acknowledge, as
IKS is a critical factor in an organization and its impact. Age discrimination can be seen in any
42

field throughout the workforce, especially as BBs continue to age. Age discrimination must
cease to ensure successful KS.
Schmidt and Muehlfeld (2017) addressed both indirect and direct effects of a climate of
perceived age discrimination on IKS. First, poor employee attitudes and resources result from
age discrimination. Negative employee attitudes, like low self-esteem or low job satisfaction, are
barriers to successful KS. More directly, the differential treatment of employees and age
discrimination characteristics can instill feelings of neglect or dislike among older workers. If
these workers feel that the organization or their co-workers do not support them, they are likely
to withhold their knowledge (O’Loughlin et al., 2017; Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017).
Additionally, age discrimination can cause the work enjoyment of older workers to decrease. A
study by Choi et al. (2018) found that older workers who felt they were pressured to retire or
who were overlooked due to the presence of MLs reported lower work enjoyment levels.
Age discrimination affects both younger and older generations. Younger generations,
notably MLs, also face stereotyping and discriminatory behaviors in the workplace. The negative
perceptions of both generations can prevent each group from attempting to interact with the
other, thereby directly affecting IKS (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). Without a well-established,
trustworthy, respectful relationship, IKS will not be effective.
Network-Level Characteristics of Negative Antecedents
Identifying negative influences among machinists’ relationships and interactions can help
an organization’s efforts to eliminate barriers to IKS. Age stereotypes and other age-related
conflicts are ever-present in the workforce today and more common on interpersonal levels than
in the organizational context. When employees of an organization hold age stereotypes, these can
43

be detrimental to an organization's culture and therefore affect the likelihood that effective KS
will occur.
Age Stereotypes
The prevalence of age stereotypes in the workplace is an increasingly researched topic as
many workforces continue to age. Multiple studies have sought to identify and disprove various
misconceptions about older workers (Ilișanu & Andrei, 2018; Levy, 2018; Oliveira & Cabral-
Cardoso, 2017). Among the most common stereotypes related to older workers is that they show
low performance and low motivation and ambition (Ilișanu & Andrei, 2018; Van Rossem, 2019).
Additionally, the perception is that they are resistant to change, difficult to teach, unable to
acquire new skills, and easily distracted by matters related to health and family (Ilișanu &
Andrei, 2018; O’Loughlin et al., 2017). These stereotypes can affect BBs’ work life, as
opportunities for new positions and promotions are limited (Ilișanu & Andrei, 2018).
Ilișanu and Andrei (2018) call for organizations to implement inclusive and adaptive
policies and programs that provide equal treatment and support for aging workers. While federal
policies seek to eliminate age discrimination in the workforce, individual organizations must
maintain them. McLaughlin (2019) argued that age discrimination laws could be strengthened
and supported by requiring organizations to provide older workers with accommodations. For
example, ensuring flexible work schedules for older workers with physical disabilities could
allow them to work fewer hours or take necessary breaks to accommodate their disabilities. Choi
et al. (2018) found that older workers are most satisfied in environments with flexible work
options.
44

Age-Related Conflicts
Several age-related conflicts can hinder the success of IKS. Most significantly,
employees often relegate or avoid those they perceive to be different from themselves, whether
due to age or another attribute (Van Rossem, 2019). This unjustified treatment can result in
conflicts among co-workers of all ages. Jehn (1995) classifies age-related conflicts into two
categories: relationship conflicts and task conflicts. The former refers to issues that arise between
co-workers and can lead to high tension and hostilities. McNally (2017) adds that these
generational conflicts stem from misunderstandings about work style and motivational
differences. Task conflicts involve disagreements over job-related aspects, whether over a single
component of the task or the task itself. These issues often stem from differences of opinion
among co-workers. No matter the content of such interpersonal conflicts, these issues can have a
detrimental effect on interaction within organizations. This negative impact on employee
interaction can then impact IKS (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). McNally (2017) recommends
conflict management to minimize employee issues. Among the most important preventers of
workplace conflict is respect. There must be an emphasis on the importance of mutual respect
among an organization's employees, leading to solid and trustworthy relationships.
Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
The following sections discuss the elements of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
conceptual framework in the context of multigenerational employees’ knowledge, motivational,
and organizational needs. These sections also discuss an organization’s goal of implementing
effective IKS practices. The stakeholder’s assumed influences will be discussed first concerning
knowledge and skills, followed by motivational influences, and finally, influences from an
organizational context.
45

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
By using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework, this section will
evaluate knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on BB and ML employees at
MatLowe.
Clark and Estes list three leading causes or factors of performance gaps in an
organization: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Identifying these factors allows for an
accurate assessment of the gaps between an organization’s goals and its current performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Once assessed, the organization can work to align all three of these
factors to achieve organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008) explain how these three elements
are related: knowledge makes up the foundation, motivation leads to the utilization of this
foundation, and organizational factors act as either support or barriers towards reaching the
intended goal. If one of these elements is missing or ineffective, the organization will fall short
of its performance goals.
These three factors can manifest in different ways within individual organizations.
Knowledge factors refer to the information and skills necessary to achieve organizational goals.
Motivational factors can be broken into three phases: “first, choosing to work towards a goal;
second, persisting at it until achieved; and third, how much mental effort we invest in getting the
job done” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 44). Finally, organizational factors refer to the barriers
employees face within an organization. They can include inadequate facilities or faulty
procedures that delay or prevent a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). The following sub-sections
analyze the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences specific to the MatLowe
organization and its employees.
46

Knowledge Influences
Three knowledge influences affect the stakeholders’ ability to implement IKS practices to
improve organizational performance effectively.
Understanding IKS
It is unlikely that multigenerational employees will participate in IKS if they are unaware
of what it is and what it does for an organization. IKS can be mainly beneficial to an
organization and its employees (van der Vleuten et al., 2018). It can strengthen an organization’s
operational culture (Macpherson et al., 2018) and accelerate organizational learning and
innovation (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010). This can enhance organizational performance and increase
a company’s competitiveness within its market (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010). It is also important
that all generations know the effect IKS can have on the individuals in an organization and the
organization as a whole. Research has shown that successful IKS within an organization can lead
to additional financial compensation for employees (Crhová et al., 2018) and increased job
satisfaction (Malik & Kanwal, 2018). Highlighting the benefits on the individual and
organizational scales can help increase employee participation in IKS.
Best Practices of IKS
Developing and implementing a successful IKS system within an organization can be
difficult. Notably, reports state that nearly one-third of an organization’s attempts to share
knowledge across generations fail (Galbraith, 1990). To help ensure the success of newly
implemented KS methods, organizations must engage the people who will be directly affected by
the process (Crhová et al., 2018). BBs and MLs are the individuals expected to participate in KS
practices. For them to do so, or, more importantly, to want to do so, both cohorts need to have
adequate knowledge and understanding of the effective methods and systems of IKS and why
47

IKS is essential. These procedures ensure consistent results and sustainable learning cultures
(Zairi & Whymark, 2000).
Intergenerational Communication
Successful intergenerational communication is essential to effective KS. One of the most
common barriers to successful communication between generations in the workplace is the
language gap (Śledź, 2016). BBs and MLs often note having a difficult time understanding each
other’s language and communication styles. Śledź (2016) reported that older workers
experienced difficulty working with ML employees due to their language use, while ML workers
struggled to understand BBs’ teachings due to their use of technical jargon and advanced
knowledge. Śledź (2016) explained some potential methods of improving communication
between generations in the workplace. These include encouraging employees to ask for
additional clarification and showing empathy when dealing with the preferences of other
generations. Organizations must work to encourage their employees to contribute knowledge and
communicate amongst all levels. Only then will an environment exist that enables successful IKS
within the organization. Table 4 presents how the knowledge influences were assessed.

48

Table 4
Knowledge Influences and Assessment
Types of
knowledge
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge influence
assessment
Factual Understanding of IKS: BBs and MLs
need to understand what IKS is and
how it contributes to organizational
performance.
Understanding IKS, best
practices in intergenerational
knowledge, and effective
communication across
generations were measured
using the cross-sectional
responses on 5-point Likert-
type scale items to determine
how well participants
understood IKS, use best
practices in KS, and
effectively communicate
with each other across
generations throughout the
organization.

The total score of participants
in the questionnaire was used
to represent the KS variable.
Procedural

Best practices of IKS: BBs and MLs
need to have adequate knowledge
and understanding of effective
methods and systems of IKS and an
understanding of why IKS is
essential.
Metacognitive Challenges with intergenerational
communication: BBs need to feel
that that they understand MLs’
language.

MLs need to feel they understand BBs’
production-related technical jargon
when the BBs are training them.

Motivational Influences
The identified motivational influences present in the employees of MatLowe include self-
efficacy and reciprocity.
Self-Efficacy in BBs As It Relates to KS
In the context of KS, self-efficacy is an employee’s perception of their ability to practice
KS (Bandura, 1977). Often, the higher an individual’s self-efficacy, the more likely they are to
participate in KS practices (Ergün & Avcı, 2018). Kang and Kim (2019) found that self-efficacy
has a significant favorable influence on downward KS. BBs are confident in their tribal
49

knowledge of manual and archaic automation machining, making them want to participate in
IKS. However, for BBs to share their tribal knowledge, they expect MLs to reciprocate by
sharing their higher technological machining experience (Kang & Kim, 2019). Though
reciprocity was reportedly less significant than self-efficacy, many researchers cite perceived
reciprocal benefits as a motivating factor of KS behaviors (Kang & Kim, 2019).
Reciprocity
Often, employees are more willing to share their knowledge with others in their
organization if there are significant reciprocal benefits. Cyr and Wei Choo (2010) found that an
individual’s inclination to share knowledge is strongly related to their perception of benefits.
Sedighi et al. (2018) recorded five main perceived benefits of KS: (a) material rewards or the
expectation of the non-monetary value of participating in KS; (b) reputation, or the expectation
of increased respect and prestige; (c) reciprocity, or the expectation of receiving knowledge in
return; (d) altruism, or the expectation of gratification for sharing knowledge with others; and (e)
knowledge self-efficacy, or the confidence in their ability to share their knowledge with others.
Liu and Liu (2019) found that employees are more likely to be more enthusiastic about receiving
knowledge than sharing it. The knowledge giver often receives no direct reward for their efforts,
further supporting the relevance of reciprocal benefits as a motivator of KS behaviors. Table 5
presents how the motivation influences were assessed.

50

Table 5
Motivational Influences and Assessment
Assumed motivational influence Motivational influence assessment
Self-efficacy: BBs needed to believe that they
can effectively share their knowledge with
ML generations.
Participants’ intrinsic motivation was
measured using Likert-type scale responses
drawing on the intrinsic motivation items
of the work extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation scale by Tremblay et al. (2009).
Self-efficacy: MLs needed to believe that they
can accept shared knowledge from BBs and
use the shared knowledge to ensure their
increased performance.
Participants' extrinsic motivation was
measured using Likert-type scale responses
drawing on the extrinsic motivation items
of the work extrinsic and intrinsic
motivation scale by Tremblay et al. (2009).
Reciprocity: BBs need to believe there will be
reciprocal benefits in exchange for their KS.
They need to feel MLs will share their
technical skills with them.
The overall score of participants in the work
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale by
Tremblay et al. (2009) represents
reciprocity.

Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational influences involve an organization’s culture, as it, along with the
management of an organization, can be highly influential in promoting IKS among employees.
Organizational Culture (OC)
The culture of an organization is instrumental in fostering IKS amongst employees.
Munir and Beh (2019) found that OC has a significant effect on KS. Starks (2013) says that KS
goals within an organization should complement the current climate of that organization. Starks
(2013) adds strong correlations between the OC and employees’ inclination to share knowledge.
For example, OC can increase employee motivation to share knowledge or instill BBs with the
belief that they must share their extensive knowledge with MLs. A study by Wang et al. (2017)
found that a perceived climate of intergenerational support and perceived organizational support
51

significantly influenced IKS. Organizations must establish and maintain a culture of trust and
honesty. Leaders must implement strategies and practices that create a culture conducive to
increased BB and ML participation in IKS. Organizational management also plays an essential
role in establishing an OC and promoting IKS. If the OC emphasizes KS amongst
multigenerational employees, KS practices are more likely to be effective (Hsu, 2008).
Job Autonomy
Job autonomy enhances IKS (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). It provides the opportunity
for machinists to individually plan and manage their work at their job (Oldham et al.1976). Job
autonomy enhances work motivation, job satisfaction, and, subsequently, job security (Schmidt &
Muehlfeld, 2017). When BB machinists perceive themselves to have discretionary power in
performing their roles, including participating in IKS, they will want to participate in IKS by
training MLS to meet the objectives of IKS. MLs need to feel that their leadership will allow
them to have power over how they perform their duties, as it will give them more job security and
make them prouder as they take ownership of their job MLs will be more likely to stay with the
organization if they feel they have leaders that give them some autonomy in their jobs (Yap &
Badri, 2020).
Leadership Characteristics
As explained in the literature, researchers have found that empowering leadership styles
contribute to the success of improving IKS. Shared power enhances the intrinsic motivation of
employees (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). Studies have also cited the significance of intrinsic
motivation in KS (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010; Wu & Lee, 2020). The transformational leadership
style motivates machinists and empowers participation in KS (Han et al., 2016; Schmidt &
Muehlfeld, 2017; Wu & Lee, 2020). Transformational leadership involves transforming
52

employees’ values and attitudes to motivate them to work for the organization’s betterment
rather than for themselves. On the employee side, it often involves having a high degree of
respect for the leader (Luo et al., 2019): “Transformational leaders promote an organizational
culture (OC) that motivates employees to participate in organizational development” and,
consequently, feel a sense of job security (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013, p. 44). Table 6 presents
how the organizational influences were assessed. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework.

53

Table 6
Organizational Influences and Assessment
Assumed organizational influence Organizational influence assessment
OC: The organization needs to establish a
culture that promotes trust and honesty.
OC was measured as the values, beliefs, and
attitudes practiced within the company.

The items included a Likert-type scale on
culture and constant competition, dishonesty
and fairness, acceptance of passivity, social
loafing, non-participation, helplessness and
hopelessness, resistance to change, negative
beliefs, and attitudes, conflict avoidance,
leadership, and trust. The responses on the
items were summed up to determine the
overall score of participants on OC.
The organization needs to set strong
examples of KS and offer employees
support to practice KS successfully.

Job autonomy: BBs need to know that they
have some discretionary power in
performing their job duties to increase
their motivation to participate in IKS.

MLs need to feel that their leadership
will allow them to have some power
over how they perform their duties
as it makes them prouder as they
take ownership of their workmanship.
A Likert-type scale on culture and leadership
and trust is used to assess if employees feel
they have autonomy in their jobs.
Transformational leadership: BBs and MLs
need to feel they have transformational
leadership to motivate them to participate
in IKS.

BBs machinists need to feel that they will
still be of value to MatLowe after they
share their tribal knowledge with MLs.
A Likert-type scale on culture and leadership
was used to assess if BBs and MLs believe
that their leaders exhibit transformational
leadership.

A Likert-type scale on culture leadership and
trust is used to assess if employees trust the
organization.

Figure 1
A Conceptual Framework of IKS

Note. Adapted from What's so Special About Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer? Identifying Challenges of Intergenerational
Knowledge Transfer (p. 385), by Xenia Schmidt and Katrin Muehlfeld (2017). Copyright 2017 by Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
und Co KG.
54
55

Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which MatLowe can meet its goal
of training 100% of its current ML machinists in the production department to be as experienced
as its current BB machinists by 2024. While a complete needs analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders of interest in this study were the BB and ML
machinists.
The project questions were as follows:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial
machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
This chapter justifies the research design selected for this study and presents the target
population and sampling techniques used. It then discusses the data collection and analysis
procedures used to address the research questions and ends with a discussion of the ethical
considerations and the limitations and delimitations.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population involved in the study were MatLowe’s machinists who were
part of the BB and ML generations. These stakeholder groups were selected for two reasons.
First, both groups were required for IKS in the production department to occur. Second, IKS
impacts machinists of the BB and ML generations in MatLowe’s production department. BBs are
56 to 74 years old, while MLs are aged 21 to 40 years old. MatLowe has a total of 139
56

employees in the organization, with 102 employees in its production department. Among the 102
production employees, 43 are BBs (42%), while 13 employees (13%) are MLs.
Ethics and the Role of Researcher
Whenever a project uses human participants, the researcher is required to make specific
ethical considerations. First, this project was reviewed and approved by the University of
Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the use of human participants. The
IRB examined the methodology and research questions and ensured that they were ethical before
allowing the researcher to collect any data. First, the researcher informed all participants of their
rights and secured their initial involvement through informed consent. Informed consent used
protected participants and notified them of their rights to withdraw at any time or to refuse to
participate. The participants first accessed the consent form and provided their consent by
clicking on the “I consent” button, after which they were able to access the survey questions. No
personally identifiable data was recorded from participants, to ensure their anonymity. The
researcher was required to conduct the study with high ethical standards.
Participants were informed that no names or identifying information would be collected.
Once the data was collected and downloaded, all survey information was permanently removed
from the Qualtrics site. All data were stored on a password-protected computer that only the
researcher could access. The survey provided access to a counseling hotline to help participants
address any potential psychological distress. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary and
independent of the respondents’ roles in the organization. They were all informed that their
participation would not affect their work or positions within the organization.
57

Overview of the Methodology
The methodological approach for this study was quantitative. As the focus of this study
involved discerning relationships among variables with discrete measurements (McCusker &
Gunaydin, 2015; Saks & Allsop, 2012) and determining causal relationships, the quantitative
method was appropriate. The quantitative methodology allowed the researcher to identify
relationships between variables and explain the causal relationships between them (McCusker &
Gunaydin, 2015). As this study used a quantitative methodology, a survey was used for the
collection of data to answer the three research questions below:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial
machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis
Before collecting data for the study, approval was sought from the IRB. The Human
Resources administrators at MatLowe were also required to give permission to survey
participants from the organization. Email and verbal invitations were used to recruit participants.
The email invitations were sent to the company email addresses of employees. They contained a
brief background of the study and the purpose and the role of the participants. Attached to the
email invitation was an informed consent form. For verbal recruitment, machinists received the
consent form and were verbally briefed about the background of the study, its purpose, and their
roles. The researcher had direct access to the company. However, the study was independent of
the role of the researcher in the company. The informed consent form clearly stated that the
58

study was independent of their work in MatLowe. Their participation or lack thereof would not
affect their employment or role in the organization. Participants accessed the link to Qualtrics
when they agreed to participate in the study, and they read and agreed to the informed consent
form before they were directed to the survey questionnaire. Only those who agreed to the
informed consent form had access to the survey.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The study utilized a purposeful sampling technique. This is a non-probability sampling
technique wherein participants are selected based on their characteristics that fit the study. The
purpose of this study was to explore the degree to which MatLowe can meet its goal of training
100% of its current ML machinists in the production department to be as experienced as its
current BB machinists by 2024. Therefore, BB and ML generations were purposely sampled for
the study. An a priori sample size calculation was conducted to determine the minimum number
of samples necessary for the study. MatLowe only has 43 BB employees and 13 ML employees
in its production department, and only 15 BBs and 12 MLs agreed to participate.
Criterion 1
Participants were part of the BB and ML generations. These participants were between
the ages of 21 to 40 years for MLs and between 56 and 74 years for BBs. The study's focus was
on IKS, and both groups were required for IKS to occur. IKS impacts both participants from the
BB and ML generations.
Criterion 2
Participants were machinists in the production department. There were 27 participants,
including 15 BBs and 12 MLs, who agreed to the informed consent form and who gained access
to the survey questionnaire. The survey included demographic questions such as, “Which
59

generation do you identify with? 1. Gen Z (born before or in 2000); 2. Millennials (born 1980-
1999); 3. Gen X (born 1965-1979); 4. Baby boomers (born 1946-1964); 5. Traditionalists (up to
1965).” The survey also included questions on knowledge and skills (Krathwohl, 2002),
motivation (Clark, 2003; Clark & Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003), and organization (Clark & Estes,
2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004).
Data Collection
The dependent variables of knowledge sharing, motivation, and job security were created
by summing up the item responses corresponding to each of these measures in the IKS survey.
The item responses ranged from 1 to 4 where 1 = Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, and 4
= Strongly disagree for knowledge sharing and motivation. The responses on job insecurity
ranged from 1 to 5 where 1 = No knowledge, 2 = Some knowledge, 3 = A little knowledge, 4 = A
lot of knowledge, and 5 = Expert knowledge. Increasing values on KS and motivation
corresponds to lower levels of those measures. Increasing values on job insecurity correspond to
low levels of insecurity. All participants answered all 27 questions.
Data Analysis
The participants answered 27 questions on a survey software called Qualtrics. The
participant’s answers were the data for the study. The researcher accessed the data, analyzed it to
assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, and utilized it to draw
conclusions about participants’ lived experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Knowledge
Knowledge combines individual experiences, values, contextual information, and expert
know-how (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). The items measured using the cross-sectional responses
on a 5-point Likert-type scale included: the participants’ knowledge of IKS; their perception of
60

the value of their knowledge to the organization; how well participants use best practices in KS;
how they effectively practice metacognition in the context of communicating with each other
across generations throughout the organization. The total score of participants in the
questionnaire was used to represent the KS variable. For example, “How much knowledge do
you think your supervisor has to do your job? You must choose one of the options below: 1. No
knowledge at all 2. A little knowledge 3. Some knowledge 4. A lot knowledge 5. Expert
knowledge.” An overall score for knowledge was calculated for the sum of the item responses of
the participants.
Motivation
Motivation was measured based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation using Likert-type
scales. An overall score for motivation was calculated from the sum of the item responses. For
example, a question asked if “Understanding knowledge sharing will motivate me to participate
in a knowledge sharing program. (Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information
donation and collection between you and your co-workers). Please select one of the options
below. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree.” An overall score for
motivation was calculated from the sum of the item responses.
Organizational Culture (OC)
OC was measured as the values, beliefs, and attitudes practiced within the organization.
The items included a Likert-type scale on culture and constant competition, dishonesty and
fairness, acceptance of passivity, social loafing, non-participation, helplessness and hopelessness,
resistance to change, negative beliefs and attitudes, conflict avoidance, leadership, and trust. An
example of the questions on the survey is: “I feel I will lose my value to MatLowe if I share my
knowledge with another generation: 1. Strongly agree, 2. Agree, 3. Strong disagree, 4.
61

Disagree.” The participants' responses on the items were summed up to determine the overall
score on OC and were used to determine if job insecurity existed due to this culture. If job
insecurity existed, the third research question on whether job insecurity impacts participation in
KS will determine the approach for establishing a positive OC to promote job security, as part of
an IKS program. The researcher conducted an analysis to determine the percentage of
participants who chose each option in each of the Likert-type scale survey items.
Validity and Reliability
External validity addresses the ability to generalize data across a larger population under
scrutiny at varying times and geographical locations (Cohen al., 2016). The study involves the
purposeful sampling of BB and ML employees within MatLowe. Therefore, the generalizability
of the study is limited to the organization (Taherdoost, 2016). Participants were encouraged to
provide honest responses to the survey questionnaire through an online survey facility called
Qualtrics. Participation was also wholly voluntary and independent of their work in the
organization.
In quantitative research, internal validation addresses the trustworthiness of the data.
According to McGue et al. (2010), threats to internal validity include the presence of
confounding variables. The present study avoids this threat by focusing on specific variables on
knowledge management. The use of valid and reliable methods also strengthens internal validity
(Mohajan, 2017). Therefore, the survey questionnaires used in the study rely on pre-validated
questions that ensure the questionnaire's internal consistency.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study focuses on gathering data from MatLowe. Therefore, the generalizability of the
results is limited to that organization. The study is also limited because the production
62

department has 43 BB employees. However, only 15 BBs (35%) chose to participate in the study
due to the use of Qualtrics for completing the survey. The BB employees who refused to
participate explained that they found the survey process of accessing and completing the survey
on Qualtrics too technologically advanced for them. Out of the 13 MLs in the production
department, 12 MLs (92%) chose to participate. A survey method is used in the study; thus, the
truthfulness of the participants is critical to ensure that the data gathered provides valid results
and findings. The study is delimited to BB and ML employees in the production department
because they represent the IKS perspectives considered in the study.

63

Chapter Four: Results or Findings
This chapter presents the findings of this quantitative study, which explored the degree to
which MatLowe can meet its goal of training 100% of its current ML machinists in the
production department to be as experienced as its current BB machinists by 2024. The study
analyzed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the context of the lived
experiences of MatLowe’s BB and ML machinists as guided by the KMO model (Clark & Estes,
2008). The research questions that guided the study were:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial
machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
The next section describes the sample, and the remainder of the chapter is then organized
according to the three research questions in the order outlined above, due to the need to address
knowledge influences before motivational and organizational (KMO) influences. A table
illustrates the research questions and related influences, and the sub-sections describe the
findings and discussion for each research question before a summary concludes the chapter.
Participating Stakeholders
The study used a purposeful sampling technique, which is a non-probability sampling
technique wherein participants are selected based on their characteristics that fit the study. The
purpose of this research was to examine IKS between BBs and MLs. Therefore, BB and ML
generations were purposely sampled for the study. MatLowe’s production machinists who were
interested in participating in the study received the consent form and were verbally briefed about
64

the background of the study, its purpose, and their roles. The researcher had direct access to the
company. However, the study was independent of the role of the researcher in the company. The
informed consent form clearly stated that the study was independent of the participants’ work at
MatLowe. Their participation, or lack thereof, did not affect their employment or role in the
company. Participants accessed the link to Qualtrics if they agreed to participate in the study.
They read and agreed to the informed consent form before being directed to the questionnaire.
Only participants who agreed to the informed consent form had access to the survey. A series of
questions were developed to guide this study. All 27 participants answered all of the questions.
The research questions are shown in Table 7.
65

Table 7
Research Questions and Related Influences for the Study
Research questions Influences
How do the perceptions of
KS differ between BB
and ML machinists?

Understandings of IKS: BBs and MLs need to understand what
IKS is and how it contributes to organizational performance.

Best practices of IKS: BBs and MLs need to have adequate
knowledge and understanding of effective methods and
systems of IKS and an understanding of why IKS is essential.

Challenges with intergenerational communication: BBs need to
feel that they will understand MLs’ language when training
them.

MLs need to feel they will understand BBs’ production-related
technical jargon when the BBs are training them.
How are the motivational
factors to participate in
knowledge sharing the
same for BBs and MLs?
Self-efficacy: BBs need to believe that they can effectively
share their knowledge with MLs.

MLs need to believe that they will receive valuable knowledge
from the BBs and that the shared knowledge will ensure their
strong performance.

Reciprocity: BBs need to believe there will be reciprocal
benefits in exchange of sharing their knowledge with MLs.
They expect MLs to share their technical skills with them.
How is job insecurity
related to participation in
IKS?
Organizational culture (OC): The culture in an organization
needs to foster IKS. BBs need to feel that they will still be of
value to the organization if they share their knowledge with
MLs.

Job autonomy: BBs need to believe they have some
discretionary power in the performance of their duties to feel
that the organization values their experience.

BB and ML machinists need to take ownership of their
workmanship and feel valued by MatLowe.

Transformational leadership: BBs and MLs need to feel that
they have transformational leadership.

66

Knowledge Influence As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses
How well the participants understood the best IKS practices and communicated
effectively across generations throughout the organization was measured using the cross-
sectional responses on the 5-point Likert-type scale. The results are explained below. The
definitions of IKS and KS were stated on the survey to ensure that the concepts were clear to the
participants.
Understandings of IKS
The results show that BBs and MLs understand the factual context of what IKS is and
how it contributes to organizational performance. MatLowe’s BB and ML survey responses
indicate that 80% of BBs strongly agree that they understand IKS and 20% agree that they
understand it, while all 100% of MLs strongly agree they understand it. Both BBs and MLs
indicated a strong agreement that they would be willing to transfer their knowledge if their
teams’ performances will improve. All of the BBs (100%) strongly agreed that understanding
IKS will motivate them to participate in this practice. Similarly, 100% of MLs indicated they
would participate in KS because they would feel good that MatLowe has knowledgeable
employees to meet its customers’ needs. Both BBs and MLs had high perceptions of IKS. All
100% of BBs and MLs indicated that they strongly agree that they would be motivated to
participate in KS because they wanted MatLowe to be more competitive in the marketplace.
They understood the value of IKS to themselves and the organization and viewed it highly.
As explained in Chapter 1, KS is the bidirectional sharing of experiences, values,
contextual information, and expert know-how between co-workers of different generations
(Rupčić, 2018). By being willing to participate in KS, MLs stated they were willing to give
knowledge and receive knowledge. The study results show that 100% of MLs are willing to
67

accept knowledge to ensure their increased performance. The study validates MLs’ confidence
that they can utilize KS to increase their performance.
Best Practices of IKS
The survey results show that BBs and MLs need to possess procedural knowledge and an
understanding of effective methods and systems of IKS to help them sustain learning. This is
validated by the responses, where 30% of BBs strongly agreed and 40% of BBs agreed that
MatLowe currently provides coaching, mentoring, and job shadowing opportunities for KS.
However, only 6% of MLs agreed that MatLowe provides coaching, mentoring, and job
shadowing opportunities. Although only 22% of the participants felt that MatLowe already
prepared them on methods to share their knowledge with other generations before the survey was
conducted, 100% of BBs strongly agreed that MatLowe does not currently have documentation
on their tribal knowledge for use in KS. Also, all (100%) of the MLs strongly agreed that
MatLowe has not documented the BBs’ tribal knowledge and made it available for KS purposes.
Documenting processes for sharing tribal knowledge will ensure consistency in what is being
shared, the methods, and the best possible outcome of IKS (Zairi & Whymark, 2000). All 100%
of the participants agreed that MatLowe will prepare them for KS by providing personal
protective equipment. Of these, 85% of participants strongly agreed that translators must be
provided, and 67% strongly agreed that machining equipment needs to be provided for training.
The study results showed that 100% of participants strongly agreed that establishing proper
preparation methods as part of the KS program will motivate them to participate in IKS.
Challenges with IKS Communication
The results conclude that a majority of MatLowe’s BB machinists feel they will not
understand MLs’ language when training them, while 80% of MLs strongly agree that they do
68

not understand BBs’ way of communicating. MLs need to feel that they will understand BBs’
technical language. Only 32% of MLs agree they can understand BBs’ technical language for
effective IKS, while only 40% of BBs agree they can understand MLs’ way of communicating to
be effective in KS. BBs need to feel they will understand MLs’ language when training them.
The study showed that 88% of participants agreed that they needed translators to motivate them
to participate in KS. Although BBs and MLs understand IKS, the study showed that through the
participants’ practice of metacognition, both groups must understand each other for effective KS
to occur. An essential part of best practices in KS must include effective intergenerational
communication throughout the organization.
An analysis of the first research question and corresponding influences are shown in
Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10. The question asked, “Do the perceptions of KS differ between
BBs and MLs?”

69

Table 8
Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences
Research
Question 1
Knowledge
influences
Type Results of survey
(analysis)
Need or asset
(threshold
of 50%)
How do the
perceptions
of
knowledge
sharing
differ
between
baby
boomers
and
millennial
machinists?
Understanding of
Intergenerational
Knowledge
sharing: Baby
boomers (BBs)
and millennials
(MLs) need to
understand what
IKS is and how
it contributes to
organizational
performance.
Factual 80% of BBs Strongly
agree that they
understand IKS; 20%
agree that they
understand IKS. 100%
of MLs Strongly agree
they understand IKS.
Asset
100% of BBs Strongly
agree that
understanding IKS will
motivate them to
participate in IKS.
Asset
100% of BBs and MLs
Strongly agree IKS will
increase the production
department's
performance; 100% of
BBs and MLs Agree
MatLowe will meet its
customer's needs.
Asset

70

Table 9
Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences
Research
Question 1
Knowledge
influences
Type Results of Survey
(analysis)
Need or asset
(threshold of
50%)
How do the
perceptions
of
knowledge
sharing
differ
between
baby
boomers and
millennial
machinists?
Best Practices
of IKS: BBs
and MLs
need to have
adequate
knowledge
and
understanding
of effective
methods and
systems of
IKS.
Procedural 30% of BBs strongly agree
that MatLowe currently
provides coaching,
mentoring, and job
shadowing opportunities
for KS. 40% of BBs
agree. Only 6% of MLS
agree that MatLowe
provides coaching,
mentoring, and job
shadowing opportunities
for KS.
Need
100% of BBs strongly
agree that MatLowe does
not currently have
documentation on their
tribal knowledge for use
in KS. 100% of the MLS
strongly agree that
MatLowe does not have
BB's tribal knowledge
documented and
available for KS
purposes.
Need

71

Table 10
Study Evaluation of Knowledge Influences
Research
Question 1
Knowledge
influences
Type Results of survey
(analysis)
Need or asset
(threshold of
50%)
How do the
perceptions
of
knowledge
sharing
differ
between
Baby
boomers
and
millennial
machinists?
Challenges with
intergenerational
communication:
BBs need to feel
they will
understand
ML’s Language
when training
them. ML's need
to feel they will
understand BBs
technical
language
Metacognitive 40% of BBs agree they
can understand MLs
way of
communicating to be
effective in KS. 80%
of MLs strongly
agree they do not
understand BB's way
of communicating
for effective KS.
Need
MLs need to feel
they will
understand BBs
production-
related technical
jargon when the
BBs are training
them.
Metacognitive 32% of MLs agree they
can understand BBs
technical language
for effective IKS.
Need

Results for Research Question 1
There were 12 ML and 15 BB participants. The survey results conclude that all the
participants of the study understood what IKS is and how it contributes to organizational
performance. For an IKS program to be successful, BBs and MLs in MatLowe’s production
department need to have an understanding of effective methods, comprehensively documented
tribal knowledge, and systems for implementing IKS. They also need to communicate effectively
to share knowledge across generations and throughout the organization. The perceptions of KS
72

were the same for BBs and MLs; both generations understood the benefits of IKS and strongly
agreed that they did not understand the other generation’s way of communicating, which is
critical for IKS to be successful.
Motivational Influences As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses
There were 12 ML and 15 BB participants. An analysis determined if there were
differences in motivation between these generations.
Self-Efficacy
The survey responses indicated that BBs did not believe that they could effectively share
their knowledge with ML machinists in their department. The participants' intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations were measured using Likert-type scale responses. Although 66% of the study
participants indicated that they were very knowledgeable about their jobs, only 32% indicated
that they perceived themselves as having the ability to effectively transfer their tribal knowledge
to another worker. Therefore, 78% of BBs did not believe they could successfully transfer their
knowledge to MLs. Additionally, the study found that only 33% of participants agreed that
MatLowe had prepared them to share their knowledge. Therefore, with a validity point of 50%
for self-efficacy, the study validated the lack of self-efficacy in BBs and in MLs with respect to
their belief that they had the ability to transfer their knowledge. Out of the 66% of participants
who said they were knowledgeable about their jobs, 83% were BBs and 20% were MLs. The
results show that BBs and MLs both have high self-efficacy about their job knowledge, but this
does not mean that they thought they possessed the ability to transfer their knowledge. High self-
efficacy positively impacts motivation to take part in KS (Tremblay et al., 2009). To be
motivated to participate in KS, BBs need to believe that they can effectively share their
73

knowledge with ML generations. Additionally, MLs need to believe that they can accept
knowledge from the BBs and use the new knowledge to increase performance.
The results concluded that MLs believed that they would receive valuable knowledge
from the BBs and that the shared knowledge would ensure their strong performance. All 100% of
MLs believed that if they received tribal knowledge from BBs, their performance would increase
and boost MatLowe's market share. The ML machinists had high self-efficacy when it came to
the value of the BBs’ tribal knowledge; the ML machinists were confident that if they acquired
the BB machinists’ tribal knowledge, they would have strong job performance.
Reciprocity
To ensure increased performance, the BBs will share their tribal knowledge if they feel
that MLs will reciprocate by sharing their greater technological machining experience (Park &
Gabbard, 2018). Often, employees are more willing to share their knowledge with others in their
organization if there are significant reciprocal benefits. Reciprocity increases BBs’ and MLs’
motivation to take part in KS (Kang & Kim, 2019). Shapin (1988) identified that mutual
reciprocity is one of the main factors that motivate knowledge sharing. To decide if MatLowe’s
BBs expect reciprocal benefits in exchange for their KS, the BBs were asked if they would be
motivated to share their knowledge with MLs if the MLs would teach them how to use
technology, and 69% agreed that they would. In response to whether BBs would be motivated to
share their knowledge, 80% said they would be motivated to share their machining knowledge if
there were given promotional opportunities for participating in KS. Reciprocity was validated in
the study; the BBs’ willingness to participate in KS in exchange for benefits validates the
influence of reciprocity in the study. Although here the reciprocity was reportedly less significant
74

than self-efficacy, many researchers consider perceived reciprocal benefits a significant
motivating factor of KS behaviors (Cyr & Wei Choo, 2010).
Results for Research Question 2
Research Question 2: How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge
sharing the same for baby boomers and millennials? This question is illustrated in Table 11.

75

Table 11
Study of Validation of Motivational Influences

Research
Question 2
Motivational
influences
Results of survey (analysis) Need or asset
(threshold of
50%)
How are the
motivational
factors to
participate in
knowledge
sharing the
same for
baby
boomers and
millennials?
Self-efficacy: BBs
need to believe that
they can
effectively share
their knowledge
with ML
generations.
66% of all study participants (83%
of them were BBs and 20% were
MLs) indicated that they were
very knowledgeable about their
jobs, but only 32% indicated they
perceived themselves as having
the ability to effectively transfer
their tribal knowledge to another
worker.
Need
Self-efficacy: MLs
need to believe that
they will receive
valuable
knowledge from
the BBs, and the
shared knowledge
will ensure MLs
strong
performance.
100% of MLs believed that if they
received tribal knowledge from
BBs, their performance will
increase and increase MatLowe's
market share.
Asset
Reciprocity: BBs
need to believe
there will be
reciprocal benefits
in exchange for
sharing their
knowledge with
MLs. They expect
MLs to share their
technical skills
with them.
69% of BBs strongly agree that
they would be motivated to share
their tribal knowledge if MLs
will share their knowledge on
technology.
Asset
56% of MLS strongly agree, and
44% agree that they will share
their knowledge on technology
with BBs if BBs share their tribal
knowledge on machining with
them.
Asset
76

Organizational Influences As Indicated by BB and ML Survey Responses
Organizational Culture (OC)
OC Needs to Foster IKS
OC refers to an organization’s beliefs and values, which are often expressed in
organizational behavior (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). Frequently, this consists of multiple
aspects, including a supportive OC and learning culture. Wang et al. (2017) concluded that an
intergenerational climate enhances IKS. Organizations can measure their culture by the values,
beliefs, and attitudes practiced within the organization. In this study, survey items included a
Likert-type scale on culture and constant competition, dishonesty and fairness, social loafing,
negative beliefs and attitudes, conflict avoidance, leadership, and trust.
The results concluded that a large percentage of MatLowe’s production department BBs
and MLs feel that they will not have any value to the organization after they share their
knowledge. Participants' responses on the items were summed up to determine the overall score
of OC that motivates learning. When participants were asked why they would not be motivated
to take part in KS, 100% of all BB and ML participants strongly agreed that MatLowe will not
value their knowledge and skills if they participated in KS. More specifically, 48% of MLs
strongly agreed that the organization will not value their knowledge and skills after they share
their technical knowledge with BB machinists, and 52% of MLs agreed the organization would
not value MLs if the BBs possessed both tribal knowledge and increased their technological
competencies. All 100% of BBs strongly agreed that their knowledge and skills would be of no
value to the organization after they shared their tribal knowledge with the MLs.
77

A Culture of Co-Worker Mistrust
According to the results of the survey, 66% of BBs strongly agreed that after transferring
their tribal knowledge to MLs, the ML workers who acquired experience from BBs would take
credit for the BBs’ work. A total of 80% of BBs strongly agreed that MLs’ technological skills
plus the BBs’ tribal knowledge would make it easy for the organization to give the MLs credit
for the BBs’ work.
A Lack of Trust in the Organization
A total of 62% of BBs agreed that their lack of trust in the organization drives their
hesitation to participate in KS. At a validity point of 50%, the study validated MatLowe’s need to
establish a culture of trust, which will be critical to the MLs’ and BBs’ participation in IKS (Le
& Tran, 2020). No one should hesitate to participate in KS because they fear others will take
credit for their work. With so many influences that impact the separation between BBs and MLs
at MatLowe, it is imperative to find a better understanding of how to bridge this divide. A culture
of mistrust and dishonesty undermines the leaders’ efforts to establish a successful KS program
and create a productive learning organization (Le & Tran, 2020).
The Organization Does Not Foster IKS
MatLowe needs to set strong examples of KS and offer employees support to practice it
successfully. The results proved that 42% of participants somewhat disagree that MatLowe had
informed them about KS. MatLowe’s communication to its employees about KS was ineffective
because the study results indicated that only 36% of the participants somewhat agree that
MatLowe had informed them about KS. Since no participant strongly agreed or agreed that
MatLowe had informed them about KS, the study shows that MatLowe has not made a strong
78

effort to motivate KS and establish a learning organization. Therefore, the study validates the
need for organizational influence to set good examples to support KS at MatLowe.
Job Autonomy
Job autonomy enhances IKS (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017). It provides the opportunity
for machinists to individually plan and manage their work in their jobs (Oldham et al., 1976). Job
autonomy enhances work motivation, job satisfaction, and, subsequently, job security (Schmidt
& Muehlfeld, 2017).
The survey results prove that BBs believe they would have some discretionary power in
performing their duties as trainers, and that the organization values their experience. When BB
machinists perceive themselves as having discretionary power in performing their trainer roles,
they will want to participate in IKS by training MLs to meet the objectives of IKS. The survey
analysis indicated that 100% of BBs strongly agreed that they had expert knowledge of their
jobs, and it showed that 100% of BBs strongly agreed they would be motivated to participate in
KS if they could decide on a schedule for training MLs. This shows that if BBs participate in KS,
they will need to feel that the leadership will allow them to have some power over how they
perform their duties as trainers.
The survey results indicated that 75% of BBs strongly agreed and 15% agreed that they
were motivated to participate in IKS because they believed MatLowe would allow them to
decide what to train the MLs on. The BBs’ ability to determine the type of machining methods
illustrates their self-efficacy due to decades of experience in product design and development,
and this enhances their sense of job security (Moe et al., 2019). A total of 63% of BBs strongly
agreed and 17% agreed that they take ownership of their workmanship because their leaders give
them the ability to decide which jobs they believe are best to work on. Only 5% strongly
79

disagreed that they have the autonomy to decide which jobs to work on, and 15% somewhat
agreed that they had job autonomy (Moe et al., 2019). BB and ML machinists need to take
ownership of their workmanship and feel valued at MatLowe. The BBs’ ability to control what
they train the MLs on and to shape the IKS methodology will make them prouder. This
autonomy also helps them take ownership of their workmanship and the resulting skills their
trainees receive, which enhances their job security (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017).
Leadership
As discussed in Chapter 3, researchers found that empowering leadership styles
contribute to the success of improving IKS. BBs and MLs need to feel that they have
transformational leadership. In response to the survey question “I would be motivated to
participate in knowledge sharing because,” 53% of BBs rated “I want MatLowe to be more
competitive in the marketplace” as “very high,” 29% rated “I will feel good that MatLowe has
knowledgeable employees to meet its customer’s needs” as “high,” and 18% rated “I will feel
good helping others learn” as “high.” The BBs’ responses illustrated their sharing of power with
MatLowe’s leaders to realize the organization’s performance goal, which states that “By 2024,
MatLowe will train 100% of its current millennial machinists to be experienced machinists.”
Shared power will enhance the employees’ intrinsic motivation (Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017).
Studies have also shown the significance of intrinsic motivation in KS (Bratianu & Orzea, 2010;
Wu & Lee, 2020). The BBs’ survey responses illustrate the exhibition of transformational
leadership in MatLowe’s organization: “Transformational leaders promote an organizational
culture that motivates employees to participate in organizational development” and,
consequently, to have job security (Avolio & Yammarino, 2013, p. 44).
80

The transformational leadership style motivates machinists and empowers them to
participate in KS (Han et al., 2016; Schmidt & Muehlfeld, 2017; Wu & Lee, 2020). It involves
transforming employees’ values and attitudes to motivate them to work for the organization’s
betterment rather than for themselves. On the employee side, it often involves having a high
degree of respect for the leader (Luo et al., 2019). The tables in the following section offer an
analysis of the third research question and corresponding influences.
Results for Research Question 3
How is job insecurity related to participation in IKS? This question is illustrated in Table
12.

Table 12
Study of Validation of Organizational Influences
Organizational
influences
Results of survey (analysis) Need or
asset
(threshold
of 50%)
RQ3: How is job insecurity related to participation in IKS?
Organizational
culture: Culture in
an organization
needs to foster
IKS. BBs and MLs
need to feel that
they will still be of
value to the
organization if
they share their
knowledge
between.
100% of all participants, BBs and MLs, strongly agreed
to losing value after KS. 48% of MLs strongly
agreed to losing their value after sharing technical
skills. 52% of MLs agree the organization will not
value MLs if BBs possessed tribal knowledge and
proficiency in technology. 100% of BBs strongly
agreed that their knowledge and skills will be of no
value to the organization if they share tribal
knowledge with MLs. 66% of BBs strongly agreed
that after transferring their tribal knowledge to MLs,
ML will take credit for BBs’ work. 80% of BBs
strongly agreed that ML’s technological skills plus
BBs tribal knowledge will make them lose the credit
of their work to MLs.62% of BBs agree that
MatLowe's culture of mistrust will make them
hesitate to participate in KS.
Need
81

Organizational
influences
Results of survey (analysis) Need or
asset
(threshold
of 50%)
42% of participants somewhat disagree that MatLowe
informed them about KS. 36% of the participants
somewhat agree that MatLowe had informed them
about KS.
Need
Job autonomy: BBs
need to believe
they have some
discretionary
power in the
performance of
their duties to feel
the organization
values their
experience.
75% of BBs strongly agree, and 15% agree, that they
are motivated to participate in IKS because the
organization allows them to decide on what to train
the MLs.
Asset
Job autonomy: BB
and ML machinists
need to take
ownership of their
workmanship and
feel valued by
MatLowe.
63% of BBs strongly agree, and 17% agree that they
take ownership of their workmanship because their
leaders give them the ability to prioritize the
production schedule with the engineers. Only 5% of
BBs strongly disagree that they have the autonomy
to decide which jobs to work on. 15% somewhat
agreed that they had the autonomy to decide on
which jobs to work on.
Asset
Transformational
leadership: BBs
and MLs need to
feel that they have
transformational
leadership.
75% of BBs strongly agree, and 15% agree, that they
are motivated to participate in IKS because the
organization allows them to decide on what to train
the MLs.
Asset

Job Security Is Important to Baby Boomers
Job security emerged as important to promoting KS among BBs. Up to 89% of BBs
strongly agreed that they would not be motivated to share their knowledge because they felt they
would lose their value to MatLowe, while 66% strongly agreed that they would not be motivated
to share their knowledge because MLs would take credit for their work. Consequently, factors
82

like job security are important and even motivational to MatLowe’s BBs. BBs will participate in
KS if the organization still values them after they transfer their knowledge. However, on the
survey, all BBs indicated that they would participate in KS if this would help MatLowe meet its
customers' needs. The BB survey responses are consistent with the findings in the previous
literature, which indicated that BBs value being loyal to an organization (Teng et al., 2018;
Weeks et al., 2017).
Job Security Is Important to Millennials
Job security emerged as important to promoting KS among MLs too. This was surprising
given the fact that the previous research indicated that this group could be characterized as “job
hoppers” who were fine with moving from one job to another (Jayadeva, 2018). MLs are
characterized as often expecting to move on to other organizations (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008;
Jayadeva, 2018; Rupčić, 2018). Consequently, there was less of an expectation that job security
would be a priority for them or act as a motivator.
Discussion on Research Question 3
These findings indicate that job insecurity is related to KS, with a statistically significant,
moderate negative correlation between KS and job insecurity. However, this may not necessarily
have been anticipated from the data. The literature previously suggested that BBs may be more
concerned with job security than MLs, given that BBs are characterized as being more
committed to a single organization (Teng et al., 2018; Weeks et al., 2017) while MLs were
described as far less committed to a workplace and more likely to jump between jobs (Cennamo
& Gardner, 2008; Jayadeva, 2018; Rupčić, 2018). MLs only seemed to develop a commitment to
an organization when they were involved with that organization for a substantial amount of time
(Calk & Patrick, 2017). In considering the two groups, BBs may have been assumed to be more
83

in need of job security than MLs. As such, it may have seemed that there was an existent but
weak relationship between job security and KS, given the varying need for job security among
the generational cohorts. However, the current study’s findings show there to be a consistent
need for job security for KS to be promoted, regardless of whether the employee is an ML or BB.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MatLowe, Inc. can meet its
goal of training 100% of its current MLs in the production department to be as experienced as its
current BB machinists by 2024. It investigated the following three research questions:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and
millennial machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
Study Results
The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MatLowe can meet its goal of
training 100% of its current ML machinists in the production department to be as experienced as
its current BB machinists by 2024. The study concluded that at MatLowe the perceptions of IKS
were the same for BB and ML machinists. All BBs and MLs perceived KS to offer an advantage
to their teams and the organization as a whole. It also concluded that there were no significant
differences in motivational factors to participate in KS between the BB and ML machinists.
Lastly, there was a significant relationship between job insecurity and participation in KS; an
increase in motivation to participate in IKS decreases job insecurity.
84

Chapter 5 then discusses how the results fit within the theoretical framework. It also
outlines the limitations of this study and offers recommendations for future research.

85

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The central problem for this study is that there is still an accelerated decline in the
manufacturing workforce in the United States, and this impacts medium-sized government
contractors like MatLowe, Inc. This decline is attributed to the retirement of the BB generation
(Myers, 2020), increased innovation and technological advancements in the manufacturing
industry (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018), and the lack of skills and knowledge
needed to succeed in the manufacturing industry (Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Sirkin et al., 2013). In
terms of the final point, a lack of personal and practical knowledge has been found to result, in
part, from a decrease in KS between employees (Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Sirkin et al., 2013).
Indeed, several scholars (e.g., Ren et al., 2019; Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Sirkin et al., 2013; Soto-
Acosta et al., 2017) have proposed that researchers need to focus more on KS in manufacturing,
especially as it affects workforce numbers in small to medium enterprises (SMEs) (Soto-Acosta
et al., 2017). While knowledge is a composite of experiences, values, contextual information,
and expert know-how (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), KS is the bidirectional sharing of
experiences, values, contextual information, and expert know-how between co-workers (Rupčić,
2018). KS has addressed knowledge deficits in several sectors, including in finance and business
(Abdi et al., 2018; Demir et al., 2021; Serenko & Bontis, 2016) but has been comparatively less
prevalent in the manufacturing sector (McCallum, 2018). Moreover, KS is uncommon among
intergenerational employees, such as BBs and MLs (Bidian & Evans, 2018; McCallum, 2018;
Widen et al., 2020). According to Bidian and Evans (2018), the rarity of IKS is a result of the
unique individual characteristics, attitudes, worldviews, and preferences of each generation, as
well as the differences in informational practices, communication methods, social networking
practices, knowledge acquisition modes, learning styles, and perceptions of and approaches to
86

gaining new skills. This study has explored these differences. The researcher took efforts to
answer them by analyzing how BB and ML machinists perceive IKS by examining each cohort's
motivation to participate in IKS and by investigating if job insecurity would impact their
participation in IKS. It also examined the possible relationship between IKS and workplace
productivity.
Findings
Using a quantitative causal-comparative approach, rooted in social exchange theory, the
research was guided by three research questions:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial
machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to take part in knowledge sharing the same for baby
boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing?
The research questions and their influences are outlined in Table 12. The findings are consistent
with those in past and current research and answer the research questions as follows:
Research Question 1
The first research question asked the following: How do the perceptions of knowledge
sharing differ between baby boomer and millennial machinists? This study found no statistically
significant difference between how BBs and MLs perceive KS. This finding is contrary to what
Bidian and Evans (2018) and Rupčić (2018) observed in their research. This is noteworthy and
relevant to this study because perceptions contribute to influencing behavior (Gerpott et al.,
2017). However, the present study has found that, at MatLowe, the BBs and MLs both had high
perceptions of greater levels of KS and that both generations agreed KS would increase the
87

organizations’ market share because there would be more experienced workers, an increase in
production, the retirement of BBs would not leave knowledge gaps, and the BBs could take more
vacation time. The responses indicated that BBs were more intrinsically motivated by KS, as
they all agreed that sharing their knowledge would make them feel more responsible, useful to
the organization, and self-accomplished. The assumption that MLs would perceive greater levels
of KS than BBs did not hold true in the outcomes of the study. MLs were noted in the literature
as far more prone to social networking (Hadar, 2015). Past studies also suggested that MLs are
more self-focused than BBs (Bencsik & Machova, 2016) and less committed to their
organizations (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). This suggests that in practice MLs are less focused
on the specific act of KS within the work context, given its association with the ongoing benefit
to the organization even after one’s departure. However, the existing literature also shows that
MLs tend to communicate with others in attempts to gather information, and MLs are more
likely to engage with one another in informal manners.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked the following: How are the motivational factors to
take part in knowledge sharing the same for baby boomers and millennials? This study found a
non-significant difference between BB and ML motivation to participate in KS. This finding,
therefore, disproved the second hypothesis. Two theories align with this finding: self-efficacy
and reciprocity.
Self-Efficacy
The BB and ML survey responses indicate that only 32% believed in their ability to
successfully transfer knowledge to each other. Therefore, both age groups had low self-efficacy
or confidence in their success at KS, which made them lack the motivation to partake in KS. As
88

stated in the literature, the higher the self-efficacy, the higher the motivation to participate in KS
(Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy significantly influences downward KS. Based on the research,
MatLowe’s BBs confidence in their expertise in machining should have translated to high self-
efficacy in their ability to transfer their tribal knowledge of manual and archaic automation
machining through KS (Kang & Kim, 2019). The survey responses also indicated that MLs had
very high self-efficacy regarding their technological skills due to their pride in being more
technologically savvy than BBs. However, MLs had low self-efficacy in KS due to a lack of
knowledge of IKS. Based on the procedural and metacognitive types of knowledge influences
discussed, the organization will need to establish, develop, and implement IKS best practices to
provide BBs and MLs with adequate knowledge and understanding of effective IKS methods and
systems to ensure an effective, consistent efficacy of KS.
Reciprocity
For BBs to share their tribal knowledge, they expect MLs to reciprocate by sharing their
high technological machining experience (Kang & Kim, 2019). Survey responses indicated that
BBs and MLs were more willing to engage in KS with each other if there were significant
reciprocal benefits. An individual’s inclination to share knowledge is strongly related to their
perception of benefits (Cyr & Wei Choo, 2010). Sedighi et al. (2018) recorded five main
perceived benefits of KS: (a) material rewards or the expectation of the non-monetary value of
participating in KS; (b) reputation, or the expectation of increased respect and prestige; (c)
reciprocity, or the expectation of receiving knowledge in return; (d) altruism, or the expectation
of gratification for sharing knowledge with others; and (e) knowledge self-efficacy, or the
confidence in their ability to share their knowledge with others. Liu and Liu (2019) found that
employees are more likely to be enthusiastic about receiving knowledge than sharing it. The
89

knowledge giver often receives no direct reward for their efforts, further supporting the relevance
of reciprocal benefits as a motivator of KS behaviors.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked the following: How is job insecurity related to
participation in intergenerational knowledge sharing? This study found a statistically significant,
moderate negative correlation between KS and job insecurity and therefore concluded that lower
motivation amounts to decreased job insecurity. The third hypothesis aligns with previous
research findings, which state that there is a mediated relationship between job insecurity and
motivation as it negatively impacts job performance and behavioral outcomes (i.e., productivity)
(Burmeister et al., 2020). These findings are important for future research and the creation,
implementation, and evaluation of IKS programs.
Implications for Practice
Based on the findings of this quantitative causal-comparative approach, the researcher
proposes solutions for mitigating the problem of a declining manufacturing workforce in general
and a lack of IKS in particular. Suggested recommendations are based on recent researcher
suggestions for organizations and teams regarding IKS, ways of establishing an IKS
organizational culture, and ways of incorporating multiple and diverse generations when
designing, planning, creating, implementing, and evaluating IKS programs.
Suggested Recommendations
The case company for this study, MatLowe, Inc., needs to establish an effective KS
process. However, the challenge will be to ensure that an effective knowledge management
system is in place, to find and retrieve knowledge effectively (Chong et al., 2011), to connect
90

knowledge seekers to knowledge providers (Zaffar & Ghazawneh, 2012), and to establish and
sustain a participative KS environment that empowers the machinists (Campatelli et al., 2016).
Campatelli et al. (2016) assert that two attitudes-an attitude of compromise and an
attitude of collaboration-must be valorized and in turn leveraged in a context of KS to enable the
formalization of employee knowledge. In this same context, IKS should be seen as an ambitious
challenge (Śledź, 2016) by any organization that is open-minded and that seeks to accommodate
multiple generations of workers to move toward KS goals and to develop a culture “that
encourages all generations to make their optimal contribution[s]” (McNally, 2017, p. 26).
Trust-Building
Organizations that seek to establish KS among hierarchically diverse employees need to
increase trust among employees and avoid age discrimination (Le & Tran, 2020). At MatLowe,
trust can be enhanced through informal get-togethers, for example, where employees have the
opportunity to get to know each other (Swift & Hwang, 2013). Since conflicts are found to harm
trust, MatLowe’s leaders should attempt to reduce disputes through conflict training programs
(Langfred, 2007). If BBs feel they will lose their value if they transfer their knowledge to MLs,
leaders must provide rewards for KS in the form of raises, promotional opportunities to BBs,
production lead roles, and participation in performance management (Ozmen, 2019). Such
benefits and acknowledgment of high experience and skill enhance BBs’ self-worth and their
trust in MatLowe’s leaders (Le & Tran, 2020). Moreover, organizations and managers need to be
aware of the OC’s role in facilitating or reducing behavior that leads to interpersonal KS (Weibel
et al., 2011).
91

Organizational Climate (OC)
At the organizational level, the older workers must feel that their knowledge, skills, and
abilities are appreciated by the organization to be motivated to share them voluntarily by
engaging in tacit IKS. In practice, organizations could use employee surveys to evaluate the
perception of potential discrimination (Kunze et al., 2011). The results can differ across groups
for several reasons (Preacher et al., 2007). While cross-sectional surveys, like the one used here,
are still the most common way to evaluate KS within an organization (Argote & Fahrenkopf,
2016), KS reflects procedural behaviors. Since behavior may change daily, this method can offer
certain advantages through cross-sectional surveys (Alliger & Williams, 1993).
The OC appears to constitute a significant predictor of KS (Goh, 2002). One way to
prevent a perceived climate of age discrimination could be to establish clear guidelines that
forbid age discrimination (Kunze et al., 2011). These would give employees the impression that
their organization actively disapproves of discrimination (Bayl-Smith & Griffin, 2014). Another
way could be to capture employees’ perceptions is through employee surveys (Kunze et al.,
2011). For instance, organizations should monitor whether their recruiting and career
management processes may be discriminatory since these areas can enable a biased culture to
flourish (Kunze et al., 2013).
Also, scholars have suggested that subjective perceptions of diversity play essential roles
(Harrison et al., 2002; Schneid et al., 2016) because the behavior of individuals is not only driven
by objective facts and data but also by their perceptions of themselves, others, and their
environment (Ajzen, 1991). As discussed, a common barrier that prevents older workers from
willingly sharing their knowledge with ML generations is their concern that the organization will
no longer need them once they have shared their expertise (Śledź, 2016). To disprove this belief,
92

organizations can demonstrate their “climate of trust” by placing a particular emphasis on
qualities like the long-term commitment to strong communication, mutual respect and support,
and the fair treatment of employees (Śledź, 2016, p. 65).
Employee Evaluations
Many organizations evaluate the performance of their employees (Townley et al., 2003).
To do so, they have traditionally used performance appraisals that are past-oriented, outcome-
focused, mostly quantifiable, and that often occur once or twice a year (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008).
These do not necessarily include an evaluation of behavior that is not easily measurable (Aguinis
& Pierce, 2008), such as engagement in KS. Performance management “is a continuous process
of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning
performance with the strategic goals of the organization” (Aguinis, 2013, p. 2).
The advantages of this are, for example, that organizations can more adequately capture
their employees' strengths and weaknesses by having more insight on how to work outcomes are
achieved, as Aguinis et al. (2011) suggested. Thereby, organizations may be more able to set
incentives to reinforce desired behaviors by incorporating a wider variety of aspects that may
contribute to employees' performance evaluations. In line with this approach, scholars have
suggested that organizations include KS as a behavior that may contribute to employees'
performance evaluation (Arora, 2002; Lin, 2015). Many organizations have a keen interest in
facilitating KS between employees (Argote & Ingram, 2000) because KS improves performance
outcomes through its positive impact on shared mental models and transactive memory systems
by allowing more accessible communication and more efficient coordination among employees
(Gruenfeld et al., 1996; Mathieu et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 2006). Shared mental models refer
93

to “common knowledge held by team members about their task and social processes” (Srivastava
et al., 2006, p. 1242).
These demographic changes put pressure on organizations to deal with the potential
knowledge loss that may result from the BBs’ retirement (Kuyken et al., 2018). Organizations
can strive to prevent the potential knowledge loss by retaining older employees' knowledge by
ensuring IKS (De Long, 2004; De Long & Davenport, 2003). Given that performance
evaluations are often linked to pay raises and employees' training opportunities (DeNisi &
Murphy, 2017), employees may also benefit from (intergenerational) KS associated with their
performance evaluation because they can actively enhance their performance evaluation by
participating in KS.
Reducing Stereotyping
Organizations should attempt to reduce generational stereotyping within the workplace.
This type of stereotyping involves individuals’ views have about the characteristics, attributes,
and behaviors of members of other age groups (Abrams et al., 2006; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996).
These stereotypes are pervasive in organizations (Hassell & Perrewé, 1995). One research study
documented that being confronted with (generational) stereotypes decreases relevant workplace
attitudes, such as affective commitment (Rabl & Triana, 2013; Snape & Redman, 2003) and job
satisfaction (McDonald & Levy, 2016; Redman & Snape, 2006). In turn, scholars have found
that these attitudes are important drivers of organizational extra-role behaviors, of which KS is
an example (De Vries et al., 2006; Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz, 2015; Matzler et al., 2011).
Confrontation with generational stereotypes may indirectly reduce participation in IKS by
reducing antecedents relevant to KS. Holding stereotypes about individuals who belong to a
94

different age group inherently implies distrust in the colleagues' ability and competence because
of their age (Casad & Bryant, 2016).
Given that trust in colleagues' competence and ability is seen to be a predictor of KS
(Holste & Fields, 2010), an employee who holds generational stereotypes might be reluctant to
engage in IKS. For example, Bauer and Baltes (2002) have explored the relationship between
gender stereotypes and women's performance evaluation, using a vignette study. Rudolph et al.
(2009) investigated the impact of weight-based bias on workplace outcomes through a meta-
analysis. The results pointed to the significance of evaluating IKS.
Future Research
Future research could pick up where this study and its recommendation for IKS programs
leave off, especially in terms of the research focus. For example, whereas this study examined
the perceptions of and intrinsic motivations to IKS, because of their power to improve workforce
numbers, this could be expanded in number to include extrinsic motivators, which can be
evaluated for their mediating role in the relationship between KS and employee self-esteem, self-
efficacy, and citizenship behavior (commitment) or their moderating effects on KS and these
noted outcomes.
More research is also needed on ways to effectively delay the retirement of BBs to ensure
their effective transfer of knowledge to MLs (Mossburg, 2018). The aging of the workforce
means that organizations like MatLowe must develop comprehensive programs to support BB
retention after BBs reach the retirement age. Mossburg (2018) recommended some options,
which include: modifying the working conditions by providing flexible working hours and
telecommuting opportunities; increasing technology to shift manual processes to automated
systems; retraining on safety to reduce the exposure to risks, both physical and mental, at work;
95

providing financial incentives for those who have reached the maximum compensation for their
job classification; and assessing age-related discriminatory behaviors against BBs in the
workplace.
Motivation
The study has concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in the
motivational factors that drive KS among BBs and MLs at MatLowe. This conclusion diverges
from the existing literature, which portrays the two groups as motivated by different factors. The
literature has found that BBs are dedicated to their work-life and have significant loyalty to their
organizations (Teng et al., 2018; Weeks et al., 2017). They are often motivated by a need to
benefit the team and feel driven to benefit the organization as a whole (Behie & Henwood, 2018;
Teng et al., 2018). In contrast, the literature has found that MLs do not possess the same intrinsic
loyalties toward an organization. They are characterized by a need for recognition for their work,
and additional efforts must be made to motivate them by appealing to their intrinsic needs (Calk
& Patrick, 2017). The characterization of the two groups in the literature suggests they would be
motivated to share knowledge by different factors. However, this study does not show this to be
the case. Consequently, it may be possible to appeal to BBs and MLs using similar methods.
There can also be better theoretical frameworks in future studies. For example, this
research was informed by social exchange theory, which focuses explicitly on dyadic
relationships and psychological behaviors amongst individuals in different groups during social
interactions. There are specific mechanisms that underlie dyadic relations in KS processes to
ensure the best possible outcomes, such as trust, leadership, subordination, communication, and
support, among other factors, which would better inform the effectiveness of IKS in the
workplace.
96

Knowledge
Additional research could certainly be done to better understand IKS in the
manufacturing industry in particular, especially in terms of its importance in organizational
competitiveness and sustainability. For example, the assumptions that MLs would perceive
greater levels of KS did not hold true in the outcomes of the study. The literature stated that MLs
were far more prone to social networking (Hadar, 2015), another indication of the efforts they
took to communicate with others. Yet the current study results find, rather, that BBs perceived
greater degrees of KS. This may be because MLs are often characterized as more self-focused
than the previous generations (Bencsik & Machova, 2016) and less committed to a single
organization (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). The prior literature suggests that MLs, in practice, are
less focused on the specific act of KS within a work context, given its association with the
ongoing benefit to the organization even after their departure. At the same time, the literature has
also indicated that MLs tend to communicate with others in an attempt to gather information and
are more likely to engage with one another in informal manners. Therefore, to understand why
MLs perceived lower levels of KS in this study compared to the previous research, more work is
needed to compare the perceptions of KS among MLs in different job categories, including
among administrative support workers, like purchasing clerks; professional workers, like
engineers; technicians, like computer technicians; sales workers; and craft workers, like
productions machinists at MatLowe. Researchers may also investigate responses to perceptions
of KS between MLs and BBs in technologically advanced service-oriented environments, like in
finance, healthcare, and the food industry. The goal will be to investigate if perceptions of KS
depend on other variables, such as the industry, job category, or job classification.
97

Age Significance
Scholars have recently drawn attention to the age of employees who participate in KS,
presumably because of the demographic change (Burmeister & Deller, 2016). The age of
employees plays a vital role in this type of knowledge transfer because formalized knowledge
transfer roles and organizational hierarchies are often interrelated with age (Pelled et al., 1999).
The employees' behavior conceptualizes the linkage between employees' age and behavior as
crucial determinants that may impact the employees' overall performance evaluation. All
chapters in this thesis address the age of employees as a critical determinant of KS.
This doctoral thesis also demonstrates that IKS is a subject that only a limited number of
empirical studies have explored. Because KS contributes to an organization’s competitive
advantage (Argote & Ingram, 2000), organizations must take a keen interest in this practice.
During their encounters, mentors have the opportunity to share tacit knowledge with their
mentees (De Long & Davenport, 2003).
To help with this, employees may play icebreaker games to enhance teamwork and
knowledge transfer by building trust (Geister et al., 2006). The emergence of disputes can be
avoided by introducing conflict management methods through training programs (Langfred,
2007). This could be incredibly efficient if the training is cross-generational (Urick et al., 2017).
As stated earlier, learning is a mixture of individual experiences, values, contextual information,
and expert know-how (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Secondly, employees in the manufacturing
field are often considered to be less creative or useful than those in other business fields (Bloom,
2018). However, as innovation within the manufacturing field continues to increase, this
impression is expected to change in the future (Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute, 2018).
98

For ESM, participants repeatedly respond to surveys over a specified period (Alliger &
Williams, 1993). However, given the limitations of ESM and other longitudinal study designs,
which are time-consuming and potentially lead to higher participant dropout rates (Alliger &
Williams, 1993), cross-sectional surveys are still the most common approach for measuring KS
(Argote & Fahrenkopf, 2016). This doctoral thesis uses only data collected in Germany.
However, a recent study by Kuyken et al. (2018) suggested that perceptions of IKS and its
relevance may vary across countries. Finally, although this doctoral thesis explores knowledge
transfer between diverse employees, it only captures age as a characteristic of diversity (Kearney
& Voelpel, 2012). For example, Lauring & Selmer (2012) have found that cultural diversity is
associated with knowledge location. This approach also aligns with prior suggestions that
research should consider distinct diversity attributes separately (Schneid et al., 2016).
Activities for achieving project goals (IKS, decreased job insecurity, and improved
organizational productivity) will include an ice breaker activity, a social tagging activity, and the
exchange of IKS artifacts, which are all described here in full. The researcher must consider both
the source-recipient and mutual exchange models for IKT activities. The source-recipient model
“can be associated with the process of externalization during which tacit knowledge is converted
into explicit knowledge and translated into readily understandable forms” (Harvey, 2012, p. 409)
by older workers (knowledge sources) to younger workers (knowledge recipients) (Burmeister &
Rooney, 2015). The mutual exchange model “can be associated with socialization, shared
experiences stimulating the acquisition of skills, and the establishment of a common frame of
references” (p. 409) in a dynamic where knowledge is developed by both older and younger
workers. Both groups engage in sharing and reception of knowledge (Burmeister & Rooney,
2015). However, scholars have found that IKS or IKT is better realized through mutual
99

exchanges than through a generic source-recipient model (Burmeister & Rooney, 2015; Harvey,
2012). This assertion is based on the understanding of intergenerational learning as a bi-
directional process with different foci of mutual knowledge exchange across different temporal
phases (Gerpott et al., 2017). Additionally, the choice of interventions for a mutual exchange
strategy included, among others, one-on-one mentoring (Harvey, 2012), storytelling groups
(Gouvêa et al., 2017; Harvey, 2012; Katuscáková & Katuscák, 2013), whole-group mentoring
training (Harvey, 2012; Wang, 2019), and personalized projects (Harvey, 2012; Giakoumis et al.,
2019). In particular, the researcher chose to have participants work in teams to complete
personalized projects, including: 1) an ice-breaker machinist humor clip + anecdote sharing; 2)
social tagging using YouTube machining channels; and 3) exchangeable artifacts (a pictorial
legacy journal produced by BBs and a video journal produced by MLs).
The Ice Breaker
When an icebreaker is present during deliberation between BBs and MLs, each group
contributes more varieties of ideas and viewpoints creating higher intergenerational sustainability
(Nakagawa et al., 2016). The rationale for the ice breaker is consistent with adult educational
pedagogy (or andragogy), which maintains that any “lesson” is best introduced to the learners by
offering them a way into the subject matter, as this activates their prior knowledge and engages
and focuses the learners. This practice is preferred over merely pairing BBs with MLs and
immersing them immediately in a team task (see, for example, Fisher et al., 2019; Herman, 2019;
Badillo-Torres, 2019).
Social Tagging Using YouTube Machining Channels
In this activity, MLs teach BBs how to tag (based on their knowledge, a handout with the
steps for tagging, and a list of YouTube machining channel options). Then, the BBs tag one or
100

two machining operations/techniques/procedures for the MLs. The rationale for using such
activity for IKS is in the informational value of social tagging networks, as they result in
dynamic rather than traditional knowledge capture (Chong et al., 2015; Nam & Kannan, 2014).
In this way, “[t]agging systems enable users to employ their knowledge structure and
interpretations as they read and process content” (Nam & Kannan, 2014, pp. 21–22). This is
based on previous successes with using social tagging for KS interventions (Ganesh & Pravin
Kumar, 2017; Zaffar & Ghazawneh, 2012) and on conclusions that social tagging is driven by
user contribution, is dynamic, is participative, allows users to characterize the tagged resource
based on their own needs, and even reflects the social and cultural background, values, and
perceptions of the individual doing the tagging (Chong et al., 2015; Nam & Kannan, 2014). This
can be used in cases where there is the need to overcome KS issues (Sun et al., 2016; Zaffar &
Ghazawneh, 2012).
Exchangeable Artifacts
The final activity involves a reflective journal produced by each individual of both
generations: the BBs create a pictorial legacy journal (a paper product or set of blog entries), and
MLs produce a video diary. The exchange of these artifacts can occur at a designated show-and-
tell time or lunch, dinner, or banquet. The rationale for having artifacts like the BBs’ pictorial
legacy journals in the project is based on implicit goals to leverage the character of BB
employees. According to Lissitsa and Laor (2021), BBs define themselves by their
accomplishments in their workplace. Therefore, leaders must strongly consider knowledge
transfer plans which appeal to BBs’ pride and loyalty to the organization.
This project decision is backed by Śledź (2016), who suggested that leaders make older
workers aware of the potential of KS to elevate their current status in the organization and, in
101

turn, make them more likely to participate in such practices. The rationale for having artifacts
like the MLs’ video diaries in the project is based on implicit goals to leverage the character of
ML employees. MLs are likely to have innovative ideas that can contribute significantly to an
organization that is open to what they have to say, and they are more likely to stay at an
organization that understands this need (Stewart, et al., 2017). Also, according to Lissitsa and
Laor, (2021), MLs are often perceived as not valuing titles and positions in the workplace. MLs
require challenges along with a fun learning environment and workplace. MLs appreciate BBs’
wisdom. MLs can also best be engaged through team-oriented activities enhanced by technology
(Lissitsa & Laor, 2021).
The rationale for leveraging both BB and ML generational characteristics, values, and
preferences is therefore rooted in: (a) the appreciation MLs have for the wisdom of others; (b)
the prideful legacy BBs can share; (c) the BBs’ loyalty to the team versus the organization, and
(d) the MLs’ preference for the team versus individual activities (augmented by technology).
Artifact use, in general, is also based on research that indicates that learning artifacts demonstrate
assessable learning outcomes (Schwartz et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2016) and help each employee
share their experiences, preferences, and knowledge (Schwartz et al., 2018).
There are expected outcomes and anticipated changes at three milestone points after IKS
is implemented: at 1 to 3 years, at 4 to 6 years, and 7 to 10 years. Expected or targeted outcomes
for MatLowe, Inc. include, respectively, (a) short-term goals, like diminished effects of surface-
level diversity attributes (age, attitude) on IKS outcomes and an increase in shared
understandings; (b) long-term goals, including increased skill knowledge (through dynamic
rather than traditional knowledge capture), improved job insecurity, improved motivation toward
102

IKS, and enhanced organizational productivity; and (c) maximum motivation toward IKS,
minimal to no job insecurity, and optimum organizational productivity.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The IKS program recommended here has some strengths that include the close
consideration of the nature of participatory KS by diverse generations. Moreover, this project
focuses on the use of knowledge as a critical dimension of value creation and value addition (De
Silva et al., 2018; Soto-Acosta et al., 2017), and by its very nature contributes to knowledge
management research in general and to IKS in manufacturing in particular, which has not
received scholarly attention. However, the project design and model could be expanded to gain
perspectives from a larger group with additional cohorts, such as Generation Xers. In addition, a
reliable tool for measurement and evaluation is necessary to properly calculate the effect and size
and measurements that reach beyond attitudes, perceptions, and self-reports.
Conclusions
The findings from this study show that there are no significant generational differences in
the motivation to participate in KS between BBs and MLs in MatLowe’s production department.
There were no generational differences in perceptions of KS, which is contrary to the findings of
other scholars, such as Widen et al. (2020), as explained previously. However, this study shows
that there are other reasons for the low motivation to participate in KS: a lack of best practices,
communication barriers, the lack of trust between BBs and MLs, and the lack of trust between
machinists and the organization. Organizations must establish and maintain a culture that
encourages and supports trust between generations to enhance multigenerational participation in
KS (McNally, 2017). If the organizational management plays its essential role of establishing a
103

healthy OC and promoting IKS, emphasizing KS amongst multigenerational employees, the
implementation of KS practices is more likely to be effective (Hsu, 2008).
Additionally, retaining long-time employees is as essential as recruiting new workers to
the industry to achieve operational and strategic goals, which ensure continued organizational
sustainability (Al Aina & Atan, 2020). From a resource-based perspective, human, physical, and
organizational resources are imperative for this sustainability (Malik et al., 2010). From the same
perspective, then, BBs and MLs can be equally valuable talent assets and a primary source of
sustainable competitive advantage and sustained performance, provided there is optimum
performance and productivity supported by effective knowledge management systems and
procedures in the form of best practices.).
As the research literature and findings from this study show, the emphasis is on the
importance of knowledge management and KS in general and on IKS in particular. This may
also justify the need for a new addition to the nomenclature: intergenerational knowledge
management (IKM). Where knowledge acquisition, knowledge creation, knowledge
dissemination, and knowledge utilization meet with KS and KT is where dynamic, participative
interactivity (Soto-Acosta et al., 2017; Widen et al., 2020) is required by employees who
understand the common practices and whose integration into the organizational environment is
important in determining the extent of KS convergence and divergence (Widen et al., 2020).
In 1946, after World War II, there was an increase in births. There were 3.4 million
babies born, which was 20% more than in 1945 (History.com, 2019). This began the “baby
boom.” Another 3.8 million babies were born in 1947, 3.9 million in 1952, and over 4 million in
1954, and this pattern of 4 million per year continued for a decade. In 1964, baby boomers
represented 40% of the nation's population (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2019). The
104

“boomer effect” (baby boomer factor) is the BBs’ influence on the current economy and its
outlook. Their longevity in the workforce has had a positive impact on business. However, they
are leaving a massive generational gap as they retire, along with major skill and knowledge gaps.
However, retirement at an older age may simply delay the reduction in workforce labor until a
future date.
The United States continues to enjoy the baby boomer effect. According to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS, 2021), the social security administration has changed the retirement age
from 65 to 67 years, maintaining the aging workforce. The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB, 2020)
found that in 2016, 15.4% of the U.S. population was 65 years old or older 2016. In 2017, they
projected that by 2030, 20.6% of Americans will be 65 and older. The BLS (2021) projects that
in 2028, 25.2% of the U.S. workforce will be 55 or older (BLS, 2019a) which is 1 in 4 in the
American labor force. The BLS (2019) also projects that in 2028, 9.4% of the U.S. labor force
will be 65 or older.
Why the Urgency
The BLS (2013) projected that the movement of about 76.4 million BBs from
participation rates of over 80.0% to rates below 40.0% will exert tremendous pressure on the
overall labor participation rate over the next 10 years (BLS, 2013). The oldest BBs turned 65 in
2011, and the youngest will be 65 in 2030. The United States will be managing the retirement
cost for 76 million retirees and the depletion of talent in its labor force (Taylor, 2014). The U.S.
age pyramid will also change; currently, 1 in every 7 Americans is 65 or older, but in 2030, 1 in
every 5 Americans will be 65 and older. Seniors aged 85 and older are expected to triple by
2050, to 19 million. Millennials comprise the other largest generation, at 80 million. There is a
potential to tap into this generation to replace the knowledge lost from the retirement of the baby
105

boomers. The intentional development of, and investment in, strategies that can sustain the U.S.
economy will be critical, including through comprehensive knowledge sharing programs like
those at MatLowe, Inc.
106

References
Abdi, K., Mardani, A., Senin, A. A., Tupenaite, L., Naimaviciene, J., Kanapeckiene, L., & Kutut,
V. (2018). The effect of knowledge management, organizational culture and
organizational learning on innovation in automotive industry. Journal of business
economics and management, 19(1), 1–19.
Abrams, D., Eller, A., & Bryant, J. (2006). An age apart: the effects of intergenerational contact
and stereotype threat on performance and intergroup bias. Psychology and aging, 21(4),
691.
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2013). What monetary rewards can and cannot do:
How to show employees the money. Business Horizons, 56(2), 241–249.
Aguinis, H., Joo, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—
And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54(6), 503–507.
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by
embracing performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 29(1), 139–145.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Al Aina, R., & Atan, T. (2020). The Impact of Implementing Talent Management Practices on
Sustainable Organizational Performance. Sustainability, 12(20), 8372.
Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (1993). Using signal‐contingent experience sampling
methodology to study work in the field: A discussion and illustration examining task
perceptions and mood. Personnel Psychology, 46(3), 525–549.
107

Argote, L., & Fahrenkopf, E. (2016). Knowledge sharing in organizations: The roles of
members, tasks, tools, and networks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 136, 146 -159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.003
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150–169.
Avolio, B. J. & Yammarino, F. J. (2013) Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead. Emerald Group Publishing.
Badillo-Torres, V., Rodríguez -Abitia, G., & Ortega-Ramírez, C. (2019). Generational
Differences in the Adoption and Use of Mobile Electronic Commerce. In Proceedings of
the 13th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–14).
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
review, 84(2), 191.
Banerjee, P., Gupta, R., & Bates, R. (2017). Influence of organizational learning culture on
knowledge worker’s motivation to sharing training: Testing moderating effects of
learning sharing climate. Current Psychology, 36(3), 606–617.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9449-8
Bauer, C. C., & Baltes, B. B. (2002). Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance
evaluations. Sex Roles, 47(9), 465–476.
Bayl‐Smith, P. H., & Griffin, B. (2014). Age discrimination in the workplace: Identifying as a
late‐career worker and its relationship with engagement and intended retirement age.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(9), 588–599.
Behie, S. W., & Henwood, M. K. (2018). Closing the skills gap. Chemical Engineering
Progress, 114(6), 36–41.
108

Bencsik, A., & Machova, R. (2016). Knowledge sharing problems from the viewpoint of
intergeneration management. ICMLG2016-4th International Conferenceon Management,
Leadership and Governance: ICMLG2016, 42.
Bidian, C., & Evans, M. M. (2018, September). Examining inter-generational knowledge sharing
and technological preferences. In Proceedings of the European Conference on
Knowledge Management (pp. 95–103). Reading: ACPI.
Bloom, L. (2018). Millennials and manufacturing: Eight tips to attract and train a 21st-century
workforce. Industry Week. https://www.industryweek.com/talent/millennials-and-
manufacturing-eight-tips-attract-and-train-21st-century-workforce
Bratianu, C., & Orzea, I. (2010). Tacit knowledge sharing in organizational knowledge
dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Intellectual Capital (pp.
107–1114).
Buckley, Patricia, Peter Viechnicki, and Akrur Barua. 2015. “A New Understanding of
Millennials: Generational Differences Reexamined.” Issues by the Numbers. October 16,
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/economy/issues-by-the-
numbers/understandingmillennials-generational-differences.html (accessed in 2017)
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2021). Baby boomer earnings grew fastest
during their late teens and early twenties. Economics Daily.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/baby-boomer-earnings-grew-fastest-during-their-late-
teens-and-early-twenties.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2013). “Labor force projections to 2022:
the labor force participation rate continues to fall,” Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistic https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2013.40.
109

Burmeister, A., Wang, M., & Hirschi, A. (2020). Understanding the motivational benefits of
knowledge transfer for older and younger workers in age-diverse coworker dyads: An
actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 748.
Burmeister, A., Wang, M., & Hirschi, A. (2019). Understanding the motivational benefits of
knowledge sharing for older and younger workers in age-diverse coworker dyads: An
actor-partner interdependence model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105, 748–759.
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000466
Burmeister, A., Fasbender, U., & Deller, J. (2018). Being perceived as a knowledge sender or
knowledge receiver: A multi-study investigation of the effect of age on knowledge
sharing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 518–545.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12208
Burmeister, A., & Deller, J. (2016). Knowledge retention from older and retiring workers: What
do we know, and where do we go from here?. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(2), 87–104.
Burmeister, A., & Rooney, D. (2015). Knowledge retention at work and aging. Encyclopedia of
Geropsychology, 1-7.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices. The international journal of human resource management, 16(5), 720–735.
Retrieved on September, 9 2021, from fostering_cabrera_IJHRM_2005_ps.pdf (uc3m.es)
Calk, R., & Patrick, A. (2017). Millennials through the looking glass: Workplace motivating
factors. Journal of Business Inquiry: Research. Education & Application, 16(2), 131–
139.
110

Campatelli, G., Richter, A., & Stocker, A. (2016). Participative knowledge management to
empower manufacturing workers. International Journal of Knowledge Management
(IJKM), 12(4), 37–50.
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and
inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 8.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
person‐organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385
Chawla, D. L., Dokadia, A., & Rai, S. (2017). Multigenerational differences in career
preferences, reward preferences and work engagement among Indian employees. Global
Business Review, 18(1), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916666964
Choi, E., Ospina, J., Steger, M. F., & Orsi, R. (2018). Understanding work enjoyment among
older workers: The significance of flexible work options and age discrimination in the
workplace. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 61(8), 867–886.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1515140
Chong, W.C., Choy Chong, S. and Chew Gan, G. (2011), “Inter-organizational knowledge
transfer needs among small and medium enterprises”, Library Review, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp.
37–52.
Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
Improvement, 42(3), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420305
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance. Solutions (2nd ed.). Greenwich CT: Information Age.
111

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Validity and reliability. In Research methods in
education (pp. 245–284). Routledge.
Combs, M. (2016). Temporal market subordination of near-term Baby Boomer retirees: The
effects of asset price volatility on health and retirement satisfaction (Publication No.
10117013) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Cox, L. V. (2016). Understanding Millennial, Generation X, and Baby Boomer preferred
leadership characteristics: Informing today’s leaders and followers (Publication No.
10108672) [Doctoral dissertation, Brandman University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses Global.
Crhová, Z., Matošková, J., & Pavelková, D. (2018). Differences in approaches to knowledge
sharing in selected cultures. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational
Studies. 2018, vol. 13, iss. 3-4, s. 15-29. ISSN 2324-7649. https://doi.org/10.1 8848
/2324-7649/CGP/v13i02/15–29
Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social exchange theory: A
critical review with theoretical remedies. The Academy of Management Annals, 11(1),
479-516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization. Management science, 50(3), 352–364.
Cyr, S. and Wei Choo, C. (2010), “The individual and social dynamics of knowledge sharing: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Documentation, 66(6), pp. 824–846.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011087832
112

Damodaran, L., & Olphert, W. (2000). Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge
management systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19(6), 405–413.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what
they know. Harvard Business Press.
Deloitte & The Manufacturing Institute (2018). Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute skills
gap and future of work study: A Deloitte series on the skills gap and future of work in
manufacturing. Deloitte Development, LLC.
http://www.themanufacturinginstitute.org/~/media/E323C4D8F75A470E8C96D7A07F0
A14FB/DI_2018_Deloitte_MFI_skills_gap_FoW_study.pdf
DeLong, D. W., & Storey, J. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging
workforce. Oxford University Press.
Demir, A., Budur, T., Omer, H. M., & Heshmati, A. (2021). Links between knowledge
management and organisational sustainability: does the ISO 9001 certification have an
effect? Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1–14.
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management:
100 years of progress?. Journal of applied psychology, 102(3), 421.
Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. http://www.dds.ca.
gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf Huge impact of Baby Boom retirements-
University of Southern California (exlibrisgroup.com)
De Silva, M., Howells, J., & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration:
Knowledge-based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70–87.
113

De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing:
The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs.
Communication research, 33(2), 115–135.
Do, N. T. H., Van Nguyen, P., & Dinh, P. U. (2018). A Qualitative Study Regarding the
Leadership Traits and Styles of the Millennial Generation in the Manufacturing Industry.
International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 52–58.Ergün, E., & Avcı, Ü.
(2018). Knowledge sharing self-efficacy, motivation and sense of community as
predictors of knowledge receiving and giving behaviors. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 21(3), 60-73.
Fenoglio, E., Kazim, E., Latapie, H., & Koshiyama, A. (2021). Tacit Knowledge Elicitation
Process for Industry 4.0.
Fisher, C. A., & O’Neil, C. A. (2019). Guiding Structures for New Learning Environments.
Developing Online Courses in Nursing Education, 47.
Galbraith, M. W. (1990). The Nature of Community and Adult Education. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 47, 3–11. Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001).
Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school
improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Ganesh, K., & Pravin Kumar, P. (2017). Mapping of development process for Tacit knowledge
transfer in Product development organization: Knowledge management in change
management.
Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation,
satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small group research, 37(5), 459–489.
114

Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). A phase model of
intergenerational learning in organizations. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 16(2), 193-216. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0185
Giakoumis, D., Votis, K., Altsitsiadis, E., Segkouli, S., Paliokas, I., & Tzovaras, D. (2019, June).
Smart, personalized and adaptive ICT solutions for active, healthy and productive ageing
with enhanced workability. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on
PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (pp. 442–447).
Gillani, S. M. F., Iqbal, S., Akram, S., & Rasheed, M. (2018). Specific antecedents of
employees’ knowledge sharing behavior. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, 48(2), 178–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2017-0023
Goh, S.C. (2002), “Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some
practice implications”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23–30.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417664
Goleniowska, A., & Kołodziej, A. (2020). Age management: How to develop competences and
sharing knowledge in an organization-The EmiTech Program. Human Resource
Management/Zarzadzanie Zasobami Ludzkimi, 133(2), 119–130.
https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.0746
Gordon, E. E. (2014). Falling off the talent cliff: The failing US jobs machine. Employment
Relations Today, 40(4), 1–6.
Gouvêa, M. T. A., Santoro, F. M., & Cappelli, C. (2017). Digital group storytelling in knowledge
management: lessons learned in online tutoring. International Journal of Web
Engineering and Technology, 12(4), 351–372.
115

Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition
and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect
process and performance. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(1),
1–15.
Hadar, G. (2015, April). Learning Preferences of millennials in a Knowledge-Based
Environment. In European Conference on Intangibles and Intellectual Capital (p. 141).
Academic Conferences International Limited.
Han, S. H. (2018). The antecedents and dimensionality of knowledge-sharing intention: An
empirical study of R&D engineers in a high-performing it company. European Journal of
Training and Development, 42(1-2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-09-2017-
0073
Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D.-Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and
knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130–149.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2015-0066
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002)., teams, and task performance:
Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of
management journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.
Harvey, J. (2012), “Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge
transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 400–417.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238733
Hassell, B. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (1995). An examination of beliefs about older workers: Do
stereotypes still exist? Journal of organizational behavior, 16(5), 457–468.
116

Hilton, J. L., & Von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual review of psychology, 47(1), 237–
271.
Herrman, J. W. (2019). Creative teaching strategies for the nurse educator. FA Davis.
Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of
knowledge management, 14(1), pp 128–140.
Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (Rev. ed.). Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Hsu, I.-C. (2008). Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving
organizational performance through human capital: A preliminary test. Expert Systems
with Applications, 35(3), 1316–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.012
Hudson, D. C. (2020). Knowledge sharing strategy implementation in contract organizations.
(Publication No. 22588563) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global.
Ilișanu, G., & Andrei, V. (2018). Age stereotypes and ageism at the workplace-
#ageisjustanumber. Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology & Sociology, 9(2),
23–33.
Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C., Harden, E. E., & Jiang, Y. (2006). Toward developing human
resource management systems for knowledge-intensive team work In JM Joseph (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 25, 27–70. Amsterdam:
JAI.
Jayadeva, R. (2018). Mentoring Millennials: Perceptions and analysis. College and University,
93(2), 29–33.
117

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 256–282.
Kang, M., & Kim, B. (2019). Understanding different motivational mechanisms for downward,
lateral, and upward knowledge sharing. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(10), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8561
Katuscáková, M., & Katuscák, M. (2013, September). The effectiveness of storytelling in
transferring different types of knowledge. In European Conference on Knowledge
Management (p. 341). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Kearney, E., & Voelpel, S. C. (2012). Diversity research—what do we currently know about
how to manage diverse organizational units?. In Managing diversity in organizations (pp.
3–18). Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Kim, C., Kang, M., & Wang, T. (2016). Influence of knowledge sharing on SNS community
cohesiveness. Online Information Review, 40(7), 959-978. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-
08-2015-0258
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination climate and
performance consequences—a cross organizational study. Journal of organizational
behavior, 32(2), 264–290.
Kuyken, K., Ebrahimi, M., & Saives, A.-L. (2018). Towards a taxonomy of intergenerational
knowledge sharing practices. The Learning Organization, 25(2), 81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2017-0023
118

Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf
conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy
of management journal, 50(4), 885–900.
Lauring, J., & Selmer, J. (2012). International language management and diversity climate in
multicultural organizations. International Business Review, 21(2), 156–166.
Le, B. P., & Tran, Q. T. (2020). Leadership practice for building trust of followers: Decisive
factors of organizational performance. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(2), 45–57.
https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i2.308
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived
generational differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341–354.
LeRouge, C., Van Slyke, C., Seale, D., & Wright, K. (2014). Baby Boomers’ adoption of
consumer health technologies: Survey on readiness and barriers. Journal of Medical
Internet Research, 16(9), e200. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3049
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2012). How knowledge sharing impacts performance: A
multilevel model of benefits and liabilities. Organization Science, 23(6), 1748–1766.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0697
Levy, S. R. (2018). Toward reducing ageism: PEACE (Positive Education about Aging and
Contact Experiences) model. The Gerontologist, 58(2), 226–232.
Lissitsa, S., & Laor, T. (2021). Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y: Identifying
generational differences in effects of personality traits in on-demand radio use.
Technology in Society, 64, 101526.
119

Liu, C., & Liu, X. (2019). Research on knowledge sharing behaviour in cooperative innovation
and simulation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 32(1), 1219–1236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1627895
Luo, A., Guchait, P., Lee, L., & Madera, J. M. (2019). Transformational leadership and service
recovery performance: The mediating effect of emotional labor and the influence of
culture. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 31–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.011
Macpherson, W. G., Lockhart, J. C., Kavan, H., & Iaquinto, A. L. (2018). Kaizen in Japan:
Sharing knowledge in the workplace. The Journal of Business Strategy, 39(3), 40–45.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-04-2017-0048
Maier, M. (2011). Knowledge management in strategic alliances: A review of empirical
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1111/
j.1468-2370.2010.00287.x
Malik, M. S., & Kanwal, M. (2018). Impacts of organizational knowledge sharing practices on
employees’ job satisfaction: Mediating roles of learning commitment and interpersonal
adaptability. Journal of Workplace Learning, 30(1), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-
05-2016-0044
Malik, A., Froese, F. J., & Sharma, P. (2020). Role of HRM in knowledge integration: Towards a
conceptual framework. Journal of Business Research, 109, 524–535.
Martin-Perez, V., & Martin-Cruz, N. (2015). The mediating role of affective commitment in the
rewards-knowledge transfer relation. Journal of Knowledge Management.
120

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The
influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of applied
psychology, 85(2), 273.
Matzler, K., & Mueller, J. (2011). Antecedents of knowledge sharing-Examining the influence of
learning and performance orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 317–329.
McCusker, K., & Gunaydin, S. (2015). Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed
methods and choice based on the research. Perfusion, 30(7), 537–542.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Designing your study and selecting a sample. Qualitative
research: A guide to design and implementation, 67(1), 73–104. McCallum, J. K. (2018).
Take this job and love it? In L. Chancer & M.S. Jankowski (Eds.), Youth, Jobs and the
Future: Problems and Prospects (pp. 55–74). Oxford University Press.
Macdonald, J. L., & Levy, S. R. (2016). Ageism in the workplace: The role of psychosocial
factors in predicting job satisfaction, commitment, and engagement. Journal of Social
Issues, 72(1), 169–190.
McGue, M., Osler, M., & Christensen, K. (2010). Causal inference and observational research:
The utility of twins. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association
for Psychological Science, 5(5), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610383511
McGunagle, D., & Zizka, L. (2020). Employability skills for 21st-century STEM students: The
employers’ perspective. Higher Education: Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(3), 591–
606. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-10-2019-0148
McLaughlin, J. S. (2019). Age discrimination laws, physical challenges, and work
accommodations for older adults: How effective are age discrimination laws in aiding
121

older workers? And what policies might help to strengthen these laws? Generations,
43(3), 59–62.
McNally, K. (2017). Leading a multigenerational workforce. Healthcare Executive, 32(1), 58–
61.
Meher, D. P., & Mahajan, N. (2018, March). An analytical study of use of knowledge sharing
methods in education. In 2018 International Conference on Current Trends towards
Converging Technologies (ICCTCT) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
Mihailidis, A., Cockburn, A., Longley, C., & Boger, J. (2010). The acceptability of home
monitoring technology among community-dwelling older adults and Baby Boomers.
Assistive Technology, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2008.10131927
Mohajan, H. K. (2019). Knowledge sharing among employees in organizations. Journal of
Economic Development, Environment & People, 8(1), 52–61.
https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v8i1.612
Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability.
Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59–82.
Mossburg, S. E. (2018). Baby boomer retirement. Nursing Management, 49(3), 13–14.
Muhammad, S. A., Giri, R. S., Madad, A., & Ahsan, A. (2019). The influence of organizational
cultural characteristics on knowledge sharing across One Belt-One Road: A case of
Chinese companies involved in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Public
Administration Issues, 5, 79-102. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2019-0-5-79-102
Munir, R., & Beh, L.-S. (2019). Measuring and enhancing organisational creative climate,
knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior in startups development. Bottom Line:
Managing Library Finances, 32(4), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1108/BL-03-2019-0076
122

Myers, D. (2008). Aging baby boomers and the effect of immigration: rediscovering the
intergenerational social contract. Generations, 32(4), 18–23.
Nakagawa, Y., Kotani, K., Kamijo, Y., & Saijo, T. (2016). Solving intergenerational
sustainability dilemma through imaginary future generations: A qualitative-deliberative
approach. Kochi University of Technology, Social Design Engineering Series, SDES-
2016–14.
Nam, H., & Kannan, P. K. (2014). The informational value of social tagging networks. Journal
of Marketing, 78(4), 21–40.
O’Brien, G. (2018). Making some progress: Manufacturing field is turning more heads.
BusinessWest, 34(24), 26.
Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees
respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 395–403.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.4.395
Oliveira, E., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2017). Older workers’ representation and age-based
stereotype threats in the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(3), 254–268.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2016-0085
O’Loughlin, K., Kendig, H., Hussain, R., & Cannon, L. (2017). Age discrimination in the
workplace: The more things change. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 36(2), 98–101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12429
Ozmen, Y. S. (2019). How the exchange relationship affects employee commitment: The
mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Management Development, 38(6).
123

Park, J., & Gabbard, J. L. (2018). Factors that affect scientists' knowledge sharing behavior in
health and life sciences research communities: differences between explicit and implicit
knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 326–335.
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship between
mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of management, 25(6), 875–895.
Pew Research Center (2018). FactTank-news inside the numbers: Millennials projected to
overtake baby boomers as America’s largest generation. https://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42,185–227 doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Multivariate Behavioral Research.
Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions, 42,
185–227.
Rabl, T., & Triana, M. D. C. (2013). How German employees of different ages conserve
resources: Perceived age discrimination and affective organizational commitment. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19), 3599–3612.
Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2006). The consequences of perceived age discrimination amongst
older police officers: Is social support a buffer? British Journal of Management, 17(2),
167–175.
124

Ren, S., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Sakao, T., Huisingh, D., & Almeida, C. M. (2019). A comprehensive
review of big data analytics throughout product lifecycle to support sustainable smart
manufacturing: A framework, challenges and future research directions. Journal of
cleaner production, 210, 1343–1365.
Rudolph, C. W., Wells, C. L., Weller, M. D., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). A meta-analysis of
empirical studies of weight-based bias in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
74(1), 1–10.
Rupčić, N. (2018). Intergenerational learning and knowledge sharing: Challenges and
opportunities. The Learning Organization, 25(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-
11-2017-0117
Saks, M., & Allsop, J. (Eds.). (2012). Researching health: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods. Sage.
Samples, J. (2018). Catching some zs: How the rise of Gen Z could fill the looming skills gap in
today’s industrial workforce. Metal Center News, 58(13), 50–56.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey Bass.
Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, P. D., Jr. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 117–121.
Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Steinmetz, H. and Kabst, R. (2016), “Age diversity and team outcomes: a
quantitative review”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2–17.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2012-0228
Schlögl, S., Sallaberger, P., Ploder, C., & Bernsteiner, R. (2018, August). Exploring Knowledge
Transfer in the Media Industry. In International Conference on Knowledge Management
in Organizations (pp. 154–164). Springer, Cham.
125

Schmidt, X., & Muehlfeld, K. (2017). What's so special about intergenerational knowledge
transfer? Identifying challenges of intergenerational knowledge transfer. management
review, 375–411. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2017-4-375
Sedighi, M., Lukosch, S., Brazier, F., Hamedi, M., & van Beers, C. (2018). Multi-level
knowledge sharing: The role of perceived benefits in different visibility levels of
knowledge exchange. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1264–1287.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2016-0398
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Negotiate, reciprocate, or cooperate? The impact of exchange
modes on inter-employee knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4),
687–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0394
Shen, B. (2016). Intergenerational knowledge sharing in knowledge-intensive enterprises.
International Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science, and Technology, 17(46), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.5013/IJSSST.a.17.46.48
Sirkin, H., Zinser, M., & Rose, J. (2013). The U.S. skills gap: Could it threaten a manufacturing
renaissance? Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2013/lean-
manufacturing-us-skills-gap-could-threaten-manufacturing-renaissance.aspx
Śledź, A. (2016). Knowledge sharing resistance of mature workers. Ad Alta: Journal of
Interdisciplinary Research, 6(1), 76–78.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). Too old or too young? The impact of perceived age
discrimination. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(1), 78–89.
Sony, M., & Mekoth, N. (2016). The relationship between emotional intelligence, frontline
employee adaptability, job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 30, 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.12.003
126

Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2017). Social web knowledge sharing and
innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 42(2), 425–440.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of
management journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Starks, A. (2013). The forthcoming generational workforce transition and rethinking
organizational knowledge sharing. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11(3),
223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2013.810494
Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Managing millennials:
Embracing generational differences. Business Horizons, 60(1), 45–54.
Sun, H., Lingsma, H. F., Steyerberg, E. W., & Maas, A. I. (2016). External validation of the
international mission for prognosis and analysis of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury:
prognostic models for traumatic brain injury on the study of the neuroprotective activity
of progesterone in severe traumatic brain injuries trial. Journal of neurotrauma, 33(16),
1535–1543
Schwartz, A. C., McDonald, W. M., Vahabzadeh, A. B., & Cotes, R. O. (2018). Keeping up with
changing times in education: fostering lifelong learning of millennial learners. Focus,
16(1), 74–79.
Swift, P. E., & Hwang, A. (2013). The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge
sharing and organizational learning. The Learning Organization.
127

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the
validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. How to test the validation of a
questionnaire/survey in a research (August 10, 2016).
Taylor, P. (2014). Pew Research Center. The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the
Looming Generational Showdown, 25–26.
Teng, L. S., Jayasingam, S., & Zain, K. N. M. (2018). Debunking the myth of money as
motivator in a multigenerational workforce. Pertanika Journal of Social Science &
Humanities, 26(1), 129–147.
Townley, B., Cooper, D. J., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the rationalization of
organizations. Organization studies, 24(7), 1045–1071.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research.
Canadian Journal of Psychological Science, 41(4), 213–226.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015167
Uden, B. Hadzima, & I. H. Ting (Eds.), Knowledge management in organizations: KMO
communications in computer and information science (pp. 154–164).
Urick, M. (2017). Adapting training to meet the preferred learning styles of different generations.
International Journal of Training and Development, 21(1), 53–59.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020, June 25). 65 and Older Population Grows Rapidly as Baby Boomers
Age (Release Number CB20-99). Retrieved From https://www.census.gov/
newsroom/press-release/2020/65-older-population-grows.html
128

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019a. Table 3.1 Civilian labor force by age, sex, race, and
ethnicity, 1998, 2008, 2018, and projected 2028. Viewed: October 20, 2019.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-summary.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2019b. Table 3.3 Civilian labor force participation rates
by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, 1998, 2008, 2018, and projected 2028 (in percent).
Viewed: October 20, 2019. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-
forceparticipation-rate.htm
van der Vleuten, M., Jaspers, E., Maas, I., & van der Lippe, T. (2018). Intergenerational
transmission of gender segregation: How parents’ occupational field affects gender
differences in field of study choices. British Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 294–
318.
Van Rossem, A. H. D. (2019). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study
of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2341
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human resource management review, 20(2), 115–131.
Wang, C., Zuo, M., & An, X. (2017). Differential influences of perceived organizational factors
on younger employees’ participation in offline and online intergenerational knowledge
sharing. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 650–663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.06.003
Webster, J., Brown, G., Zweig, D., Connelly, C. E., Brodt, S., & Sitkin, S. (2008). Beyond
knowledge sharing: Withholding knowledge at work. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 27(8), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27001-5
129

Weeks, K. P., Weeks, M., & Long, N. (2017). Generational perceptions at work: In-group
favoritism and out-group stereotypes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(1), 33–53.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0062
Weibel, A., Searle, R., Den Hartog, D. N., Gillespie, N., & Six, F. (2011). Employee Trust in
Organizational Contexts, in: Hodgkinson, GP & Ford, JK. International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (26), 143–192.
Wellener, P. (2019). Production, growth hurt by skills gap: Report from Deloitte, The
Manufacturing Institute points to digital skills needed for the future. (2019). Plant
Engineering, 73(1), 38–39.
Werth, E. P., & Werth, L. (2011). Effective training for millennial students. Adult Learning,
22(3), 12–19.
Widen, G., Ahmad, F., Siven, T., & Ivantsova, E. (2020, December). Understanding generational
differences in knowledge sharing. In European Conference on Knowledge Management
(pp. 841–XXIII). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Williams, V. N., Medina, J., Medina, A., & Clifton, S. (2017). Bridging the Millennial
generation expectation gap: Perspectives and strategies for physician and
interprofessional faculty. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 353(2), 109–
115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2016.12.004
Wu, W.-L., & Lee, Y.-C. (2020). Do work engagement and transformational leadership facilitate
knowledge sharing? A perspective of conservation of resources theory. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2615. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072615
130

Xin, W., & Xiaoying, D. (2010). Intergenerational knowledge transfer in the workplace: a
sociologcial perspective. In E. Tsui (Hrsg.), Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, 11–12 November 2010 (S.
498–506). Reading: Academic Publ.
Yap, W. M., & Badri, S. K. Z. (2020). What Makes Millennials Happy in their Workplace?
Asian Academy of Management Journal, 25(1).
Zaffar, F. O., & Ghazawneh, A. (2012). Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration through Social
Media-the Case of IBM. In MCIS (Short Papers) (p. 28).
Zairi, M. and Whymark, J. (2000), “The transfer of best practices: how to build a culture of
benchmarking and continuous learning-part 1”, Benchmarking: An International Journal.
7(1), pp. 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770010317285

131

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
My name is Catherine Holdbrook-Smith, and I appreciate your participation in this
survey. The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MatLowe, Inc., a
manufacturer of electronic components for aerospace and space applications, can meet its goal of
training 100% of its current millennial (ML) machinists in the production department to be as
experienced as its current baby boomer (BB) machinists by 2024. The analysis focuses on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the context of baby boomers and
millennials' lived experiences in the production department.
The significance of this study is grounded on the advancement of literature in addressing
the issue of the lack of intergenerational knowledge sharing (IKS) between baby boomers and
millennial machinists in production departments. Your participation in this study is voluntary.
You may discontinue the survey at any time. If you feel uncomfortable and decide to
discontinue, please do not hesitate to let me know; I will delete your answers on the
qualtrics.com system.
Before you begin your survey, I will explain the components of certain constructs of this
study. MatLowe’s goal is to develop 100% of its current MLs into experienced machinists by
2024. MatLowe’s customers are concerned that over the next 15 years, MatLowe will not be able
to meet its production, quality, and efficiency levels required for its customers to meet their
commitments to the government. Your participation in this study is a valuable contribution to the
organization meeting its goal.
Thank you for your time.

132

Appendix B: Knowledge Sharing Survey Questions

Q1 How many years have you been employed with MatLowe?
o Less than 2 years
o 2–4 years
o 5–10 years
o 11–25 years
o Over 25 years

Q2 Which generation do you identify with?
o Millennials (MLs) (Born 1980–1999)
o Baby boomers (BBs) (Born 1946–1964)

Q3 Knowledge is the skills you have acquired through your work experience or education.

How would you rate your job knowledge? You must choose one of the options below
o No knowledge at all
o A little knowledge
o Some Knowledge
o A lot of Knowledge
o Expert Knowledge

133

Q4 Knowledge is the skills you have acquired through your work experience or education.
How much knowledge do you think your co-workers have to do your job? You must choose one
of the options below.
o No Knowledge at all
o A little Knowledge
o Some Knowledge
o A lot of Knowledge
o Expert Knowledge

Q5 Knowledge is the skills you have acquired through your work experience or education.
How much knowledge do you think your supervisor has to do your job? You must choose one of
the options below.
o No Knowledge at all
o A little Knowledge
o Some Knowledge
o A lot of Knowledge
o Expert Knowledge

Q6 Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between
you and your co-workers.

Please explain how MatLowe effectively informed you about knowledge sharing.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
134

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Q7 Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between
you and your co-workers.

I understand Intergenerational knowledge sharing (IKS). Please select one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

Q8 Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between
you and your co-workers.
Understanding knowledge sharing will motivate me to participate in a knowledge-sharing
program. Please select one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

135

Q9 Tribal knowledge is any information that is unwritten but not commonly known by others in
the organization.

I can effectively transfer my tribal knowledge to another worker Please select one of the options
below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o disagree
o Strongly disagree

136

Q10
Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between you
and your co-workers.

MatLowe preparing me for knowledge sharing will motivate me to participate in knowledge
sharing.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

Q11
Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between you
and your co-workers.

MatLowe currently trained me on methods for knowledge sharing. Please select one of the
options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

137

Q12 Tribal knowledge is any unwritten information that is known to one person or certain people
in the organization but not commonly known by others in the same organization.

MatLowe has not documented baby boomer’s tribal knowledge for knowledge sharing. Please
select one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

Q13 Understanding the other generation's way of communicating will motivate me to participate
in knowledge sharing
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

138

Q14 Tribal knowledge is any unwritten information that is known to one person or certain people
in the organization but not commonly known by others in the same organization.

Please rate the following: MLs’ technological skills plus the BBs’ tribal knowledge would make
it easy for the organization to give the MLs credit for the BBs’ work
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

139

Q15 Please rate the following:
Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection between you
and your co-workers. I would be motivated to participate in knowledge sharing because:
140

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree

o o o o o o
MatLowe will
increase our
daily production
o o o o o o
The company
would meet its
customers' needs
o o o o o o
I want MatLowe
to be more
competitive in
the marketplace
o o o o o o
I will feel good
that MatLowe
has
knowledgeable
employees to
meet its
customer’s needs
o o o o o o
MatLowe will
establish proper
preparations as
part of the KS
program
o o o o o o
I want MatLowe
to be more
competitive in
the marketplace
o o o o o o
I will feel good
that MatLowe
has
knowledgeable
employees to
meet its
customer’s needs
o o o o o o
I will feel good
helping others
learn
o o o o o o
141

Promotional
opportunities
will be limited
because there
will be more
experienced
workers
o o o o o o

142

Q16 Please rate each of the statements below on why you would not be motivated to share your
knowledge.

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I feel I will
lose my value
to MatLowe
o o o o o o
I feel other
people will get
more credit for
my work
o o o o o o
The other
generation will
take credit for
my work
o o o o o o
I do not trust
MatLowe to
make a
decision that
positively
benefits me
o o o o o o
MatLowe will
not value my
knowledge and
skills
o o o o o o
The
organization
will not value
me if I shared
my Technical
skills with the
other
generation,
because the
other
generation will
be perceived
as possessing
their skills,
and mine
o o o o o o

143

Q17 Please rate each of the statements below on why you will not be motivated to share your
knowledge. (Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and collection
between you and your co-workers).

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I do not have
time to
participate in
knowledge
sharing
o o o o o o
Knowledge
sharing is not a
performance
goal
o o o o o o
If I am not
rewarded for
sharing my
knowledge,
then I do not
have to do it
o o o o o o
The other
generation will
take credit for
my work
o o o o o o
I do not trust
MatLowe to
make
decisions that
positively
benefit me
o o o o o o

144

Q18 Please rate each of the statements below on why you will not be motivated to share your
knowledge. A reminder Knowledge sharing is the two-way sharing of information donation and
collection between you and your co-workers.

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I will lose my
value to
MatLowe
o o o o o o
I feel other
people will
get more
credit for
work
o o o o o o
I do not feel I
have time to
participate in
knowledge
sharing
o o o o o o
If I Keep my
knowledge, I
can negotiate
for things like
more money,
and time off.
So I want to
keep my
knowledge to
myself
o o o o o o
My way of
working is
better than
MatLowe's
way
o o o o o o
Knowledge
sharing is not
a performance
goal
o o o o o o

145

Q19 Please rate the following:
I would be willing to transfer my knowledge if:
146

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I can Trust
my trainee
to share
their
knowledge
with me
o o o o o o
I feel my
trainee is
respectful
towards me
o o o o o o
I feel my
trainee is
respectful
towards my
generation
o o o o o o
My trainee
takes pride
in our trade
as
machinists
o o o o o o
I feel my
trainee is
committed
to the job
o o o o o o
My trainee
is good with
technology
o o o o o o
My trainee
is willing to
learn more
technology
o o o o o o
My trainee
is willing to
share
technology
with me
o o o o o o
147

MatLowe
will
establish
policies and
procedures
as part of
the
Knowledge
Sharing
program
o o o o o o
I understand
the other
production-
related
generation's
technical
jargon
o o o o o o

148

Q20 Please rate the following:
I would be willing to transfer my knowledge if:

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I can retire
whenever I
am ready
o o o o o o
I will be given
a promotional
opportunity
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide on
the schedule
for training
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide on
the training
method
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide who
I can train
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide what
to train
o o o o o o
knowledge
sharing will
make us work
better as a
team
o o o o o o
The team’s
performance
will improve
o o o o o o
The other
generation
will also teach
me their
technical
skills
o o o o o o

149

Q21 Please rate the following:
I would be motivated to transfer my knowledge if:
150

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I have the
autonomy to
decide on the
job to work
on
o o o o o o
I can take
ownership of
my
workmanship
o o o o o o
Leaders give
me the
ability to
decide which
jobs I think
is the best to
work on
o o o o o o
I will be
given a
promotional
opportunity
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide on
the schedule
for training
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide on
the training
method
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide
who I can
train
o o o o o o
I am allowed
to decide
what to train
o o o o o o
151

knowledge
sharing will
make us
work better
as a team
o o o o o o
The team’s
performance
will improve
o o o o o o
The other
generation
will also
teach me
their
technical
skills
o o o o o o

Q22 Please rate how you feel MatLowe will prepare you for knowledge sharing:

Very
prepared
Prepared
A little
prepared
Unprepared
Very
unprepared
Provide tools
o o o o o
Provide
machining
equipment
for training
o o o o o
Provide
personal
protective
equipment
o o o o o
Provide
translator
(Bilingual)
o o o o o
Provide me
training on
how to share
my
knowledge
o o o o o

152

Q23 MatLowe currently provides coaching, mentoring, and job shadowing opportunities for
knowledge sharing. Please select one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

153

Q24 How would you rate your trust in the other generations in the production department?
Very high High Low Very low
To take
responsibility for
their mistakes
o o o o
To have respect
for my work
o o o o
To help me
when I am
behind in my
work
o o o o
To teach me all
their skills
o o o o
To work
overtime when
asked
o o o o
To speak up for
me when I am
not around
o o o o
To take my job
o o o o

Q25 How would you rate the following?
154

Strongly
agree
Agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
MatLowe has
encouraged
Knowledge
sharing
between the
same
generation
o o o o o o
MatLowe has
prepared me to
share my
knowledge
with other
generations
o o o o o o
MatLowe has
encouraged
knowledge
sharing
between me
and other
generations
o o o o o o
MatLowe has
informed me
about
knowledge
sharing
o o o o o o
The time I use
to produce
parts is more
important to
my supervisor
than the time I
use to share
my knowledge
o o o o o o
My knowledge
makes me
more valued by
MatLowe
o o o o o o
155

I understand
the other
generation's
way of
communicating
o o o o o o

Q26 A Transformational Leader inspires and motivates his/her team members to create positive
changes in their organization.

Our leaders are Transformational Leaders. Please select one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Somewhat disagree

Q27 Transformational Leadership is leadership that inspires and motivates team members to
create positive changes in organizations.

156

Transformational leadership will motivate me to participate in knowledge sharing. Please select
one of the options below.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Somewhat agree
o Somewhat disagree
o Disagree
o Strongly disagree

157

Appendix C: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Exempt Review Form
INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Impact of Job Insecurity in Intergenerational Knowledge Sharing (IKS)
among Machinists in the United States

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Catherine Holdbrook-Smith

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Eric Canny

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is not clear
to you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore the degree to which MatLowe can meet its goal of
training 100% of its current millennial (ML) machinists in the production department to be as
experienced as its current baby boomer (BB) machinists by 2024, as stated in Table 2 above.
Baby boomer is a term used to describe people born from the year 1946 to 1964. Millennial is a
term used to describe the population born from the year 1980 to 2000.

The analysis here is based on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in the
context of the lived experiences of MLs and BBs at MatLowe.

The series of questions developed to guide this study include:
1. How do the perceptions of knowledge sharing differ between baby boomers and
millennials machinists?
2. How are the motivational factors to participate in knowledge sharing the same or
different for baby boomers and millennials?
3. How is job insecurity related to participation in IKS?

By integrating IKS within the organizational culture, MatLowe’s BB and ML employees
would all understand the power of IKS and its positive effects on them and the organization as a
whole. Specifically, this study examines how both BBs and MLs can be motivated to participate
in IKS and how their perception of job security affects their lack of engagement in these
behaviors. This study seeks to provide an insight on how to facilitate IKS within manufacturing
organizations by transferring tribal knowledge from BBs to MLs to increase the number of
experienced production workers in manufacturing.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
This Informed Consent also addresses the participant’s right to confidentiality. Participants who
agree to the Informed Consent will be contacted via company email to provide information on
the study. If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in a 27 question survey that
158

will take approximately 9 minutes to complete. You will be required to complete the survey
electronically on Qualtrics.com. Assistance will be provided to ensure your successful
completion of this anonymous survey.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

All 27 participants will remain anonymous.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Catherine Holdbrook-Smith (310) 367-
7194 or by email at holdbroo@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Impact of tenure on the professional motivation of civil servants

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Enhancing transfer of harassment prevention training into practice

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Intelligent Learning Quotient

PDF

Increasing post-secondary education among police officers: an innovation study

PDF

Clearing the way: pathways to retention of women in engineering

PDF

Access to quality supplemental educational programs for K-12 students in underserved communities

PDF

Implementing comprehensive succession planning: an improvement study

PDF

Graduating with faith: the impact of family, culture, and mentorship on Latino males in a Catholic high school

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Holdbrook-Smith, Catherine (author)

Core Title Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 01/27/2022

Defense Date 01/26/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag baby boomer,intergenerational knowledge sharing,millennial,OAI-PMH Harvest,social exchange theory

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Canny, Eric (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email Akezhr2@gmail.com,holdbroo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110575649

Unique identifier UC110575649

Legacy Identifier etd-HoldbrookS-10357

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Holdbrook-Smith, Catherine

Type texts

Source 20220128-usctheses-batch-909 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu