Running head: INTER-GENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE TRANSFER
Inter-Generational Relationships and the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge
Becky Kunz
Northwestern College
Capstone Research Project
LDR 5300
Dr. Dale Hutchcraft
Sept. 2014
1
INTER-GENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND THE TRANSFER
2
Inter-Generational Relationships and the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge
Introduction
We are facing what some experts are calling the human capital crisis as the aging Baby
Boomers, those 65 years & up, will increase from 45 million to 80 million. Boomers are the
largest generation of the 21stt century. According to the US Dept. of Labor, every day for the
next 18 years 8,000 Boomers will be eligible to retire. (US Dept. Of Labor, n.d.) Human capital
is viewed as the collective value of the workforce including the capabilities, knowledge, skills,
and experience. (Aldisent, 2002) Some refer to this collective value as intellectual capital as it is
reflective of the creativity, thinking, social and decision making skills employees contribute to
any organization. (Kaplan & Norton, 2004)
This major shift in the workforce will leave the US Labor market with not enough
qualified workers to fill the gap. The replacement generations, the Gen Xer’s, whose population
is only at about 48 million today is the smallest generation of the 21st century. Followed by the
Millennial generation, at 70 million, also known as the Nexters, Gen Y or Echo Boom
generation, as it is fairly close in size to the Boomers.
Most organizations today are dealing with a myriad of issues related to this fundamental
shift including the loss of intellectual capital, managing generational biases and stereotypes as
well as training and retention of younger generations. There is a great deal of prevailing research
that confirms the correlation that social dimension concepts like interpersonal relationships, high
social capital and relational embeddedness are key factors involved in the transfer of tacit
knowledge sharing and acquisition. (Moran, 2005; Granovetter MS. (1983); Yang & Farn,
2006,2010; Nonaka, 1994; Wagner,1987; Connell, Klein & Powell, 2003; Huang, Liu &
Warden, 2005). However, most available research does not include the variables of generational
differences that might inhibit these interpersonal relationships from forming, thus inhibit the
flow of tacit knowledge as well.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study is to explore the generational diversity issues
related to this demographic change, specifically with regards to inter-generational relationships
within a US manufacturing organization and the transfer of tacit knowledge to younger
generations of workers who may have learning styles that are widely different from older
generations. Results of this study will be presented to the stakeholders, namely the leadership
staff at a US manufacturing facility and the research advisor for the GCE MOL program at
UNWSP.
Looking at knowledge and leadership as a product and resource to be leveraged, is the
basis of its value as a commodity. Sharing knowledge among employees is regarded as essential
in creating a competitive advantage, (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and yet many organizations are
struggling with the factors that inhibit that flow of knowledge from one generation to another.
(MS-ITS Capstone team, 2007) Knowledge falls into one of two categories, either tacit or
explicit. Tacit knowledge is the kind of knowledge that comes from experience and is
internalized. It is hardly codified and not easily transferred. Explicit knowledge is anything that
is easily documented or codified into information and transferred fairly easily.
Technology today has enabled us to codify an abundance of explicit information that
some experts say has led to a shortage of tacit knowledge. Most forms of tacit knowledge can
only be acquired through careful judgment and experience. Younger generations have explicit
forms of knowledge at their fingertips and smartphones but what they lack is how to internalize
that knowledge into the know-how and the know-who. Leading researchers on tacit knowledge,
Polanyi, (1958) and Nonaka (1994), suggest that tacit knowledge sharing is socially driven
among organizational members and deeply embedded within an individual.
The remainder of this research proposal will be organized as follows. In the next section,
a theoretical framework that will explore the current culture of generational conflicts. One that
declares a disdain for any management or learning that comes from the top-down but instead is
driven by democratization and the learner. Followed by a review of current research that
highlights the advantages of social dimensions within workgroups to transfer tacit knowledge.
This mixed –methods study hopes to contribute data related to generational diversity issues that
would enable organizations to focus on the social dimensions of interpersonal relationships
among workgroups in order to successfully transfer tacit knowledge from one generation to
another. Thereafter, a hypotheses will be formulated. The final section of this research proposal
will delineate the methods of the explanatory sequential design of the research. Followed by data
analysis, results and any further implications will be discussed.
Conceptual background and hypotheses development
Throughout history each generation is replaced with new ideas, concepts and relevance
that fits current culture. For the purpose of this study each generation will be defined as follows.
Baby boomers are those born between 1940-1965. They are characterized by crusading causes,
optimism & involvement, personal fulfillment, not enough work-life balance and title
recognition. They were the first generation to grow up with TV but also the first generation with
high divorce rates. Some have stereotyped them as the “me generation” as their parents doted on
them. Generation X are those born between 1966-1980. They are characterized as independent
thinkers, rule breakers, direct or blunt and non-conformist. They were labeled as the “latch-key”
kids, as their parents the Boomers were always working so they questioned authority frequently.
They also experienced merged family values. Millennial or Generation Y are those born between
1981-2002. They are characterized as socially engaged, entitled, participative, confident and
digital but also lacking in the ability to actively read social cues and body language. They are
the first generation to grow up with digital media as a way to learn, communicate and socialize.
They want to engage in meaningful work as long as it does not conflict with their work-life
balance.
McNeal (2011) wrote about the challenges leaders face today. The challenge issued to
older generations of leaders “is in making connections with the culture that shaped and formed
them, against the culture that confronts them, without shutting down.” (McNeal, 2011, p. 75)
His work related to these cultural conflicts is the jumping off point within this study. As well as
the education and learning concepts from Prensky, (2001) who first coined the term “digital
native” to describe Millennial’s who are native to the digital world and “digital immigrant” to
describe those who were not born into a digital world but are adapting to new technology.
(Prensky, 2001) It is the combination of these thought leaders concepts that lends this study its
theoretical framework and historical context of generational diversity issues today.
Traditional learning and education has taken place within a Newtonian worldview where
the teacher has knowledge and imparts that knowledge onto its pupils or students. Given that our
educational methods grew out of our own cultural oral histories, they became linear and
analytical in nature. Moving logically from one point to another in a straight line. We primarily
learn from dissecting things in order to build them back together. This dissection can assure the
internalization of information into tacit knowledge. However today McNeal argues, the
Newtonian worldview has collapsed due to our culture of technology and we are left with a
relocation of authority and power. “People in this culture grow increasingly hostile to the notion
that others know what is best for them or should be able to tell them how to live their lives. One
reason for this is the increasing of democratization occurring in every sphere aided in large part
by technology.” (McNeal, 2011, p. 82) This relocation of authority and power would seem to
exacerbate the generational issues we are currently facing and lessen the chances of close
interpersonal relationships forming. This study would also argue that a consequence and benefit
of the relocation of authority and power is a blossoming of non-linear or lateral thinking. Where
human thought is characterized by an expansion of multiple directions with multiple starting
points to apply logic.
According to Prensky, college students today have spent less than 5,000 hours reading
and 10,000 hours playing video games and over 20,000 hours watching TV. “Today’s students
think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These
differences go further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of
experiences lead to different brain structures,” says Dr. Bruce D. Perry of Baylor College of
Medicine.” (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) These varied life experiences would also lend itself to an
explanation of why older generations are having a difficult time connecting to the younger
generations.
Technology has afforded younger generations the luxury of time and individual authority
over a subject. Students no longer have a need for this teacher driven learning and education.
They can dissect subjects by utilizing technology faster than ever in recorded history. They are
consumers of explicit knowledge every minute they are connected and thus the learner now
drives the teaching. These luxuries however, come at a price. Some may argue that because the
teacher and student relationship has changed so dramatically, so have our abilities to maintain
interpersonal relationships across generations. Many Americans no longer live close to older
family members due to our mobile culture and thus, may not have much experience in building
inter-generational relationships outside of the workplace. Which also lends itself to the
explanation of why younger generations have a difficult time connecting to older generations, we
have simply lost our close inter-generational family ties of the past. This study aims to highlight
this shift, as a major cause of the loss of intellectual capital among workgroups that are trying to
facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge from older generations to younger generations.
Generational diversity issues are nothing new, every cycle in history has to contend with
models from the past. However, this shift in learning and acquiring information and knowledge
is producing generational gaps that we have never experienced before. Some may argue that it is
a perception of differing values that has created such diversity issues. Not even during the
industrial revolution, has there been such profound differences between generations.
The baby boomer generation has in large part regarded authority as something that is
assigned or bestowed based on your contribution. They are known for their “strong work ethic”
as well as for coining the term “workaholic” which is consistent with their views on authority
and power. The gen Xer’s were the first generation that exhibited this shift of power and
authority to the individual. It is noted that within the American population, the gen Xer’s were
the first generation to navigate culture with a non-Christian worldview. (McNeal, 2011) This
could be a key factor in a change in work and family values and the disaffection for anything
“top-down”. The millennial generation is simply navigating a much broader worldview that
some could argue is more holistic in nature. If indeed their brains process information
differently, then it is no wonder that there are significant generational gaps. As Marc Prensky
put it, “smart adult immigrants accept that what they don’t know about their new world and take
advantage of their kids to help them learn and integrate. Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible)
immigrants spend most of their time grousing about how good things were in the “old country””.
A recent study regarding cross-generational knowledge flows, investigated the biases that
affected the tacit knowledge transfer.(MS-ITS Capstone team, 2007) Their results identified a
convergence of common factors that not only affect tacit knowledge transfer but influence crossgenerational biases. They are: trust, loyalty, work-ethics and family values. This study will
utilize those factors to explore the social dimensions related to building intergenerational
relationships as those factors inhibit them.
The prevailing research surrounding tacit knowledge transfer is supported by the large
umbrella idea of social relationships. In other words, it is the social relationships that facilitate
the transfer of knowledge within a workgroup. Work done by Shu-Chen Yang & Cheng-Kiang
Farn (2010) developed a multilevel model for tacit knowledge sharing and acquisition from a
social relationship perspective. Their model combined the perspectives of social capital with
workplace social inclusion.
The concept of workplace inclusion was drawn from Pearce & Randel (2004) which is a
perceptual measurement of how an employee perceives that they are socially included by others
in their workplace. Individuals whose perceptions of being an insider of their workgroup
mediates the relationship between their tacit knowledge acquisition and tacit knowledge sharing.
(Yang & Farn, 2010)
Social capital was defined as the relational, cognitive and structural components within
relational embeddedness that represent the motivational characteristics of an interpersonal social
exchange. (Yang & Farn, 2010) Social capital is a common understanding among people who
share language and narrative that is embedded in ideals of shared values and vision. This
concept would support the common factors that influence the flow of tacit knowledge and
generational biases mentioned earlier. Each generation holds social capital that is unique and
difficult to comprehend if a person is not of that particular generation. “Members can exchange
tacit knowledge without misunderstandings when they have similar values with regard to what
and how things should be done collectively. The development of shared values enables
individuals to be more committed to interpersonal relationships.” (Yang & Farn, 2010, p. 171)
As mentioned earlier, in McNeal’s (2011) theory of the relocation of power and
authority, younger generations no longer value top-down anything but rather look to leadership
that is more collaborative and socially engaging. This, in addition to the changes in family
values, undermines a collective sense of shared values across generations and thus inhibits
interpersonal relationships that would lead to successful knowledge transfer. Additional findings
within Yang & Farn’s (2010) research, proved positively that employees can learn tacit
knowledge from other employees without much resistance, when the employee is found to be
considered trustworthy in their social network. This direct correlation supports the other
research done on cross-generational knowledge flows where trust, loyalty, work-ethics and
family values were common inhibiting factors. The primary research question and hypothesis of
this study is:
H1: The lack of interpersonal relationships among inter-generational workgroups, inhibits
or blocks the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Based on tacit knowledge literature, Insch, McIntyre and Dawley incorporated Nonaka
and Kono’s (1998) study on tacit knowledge comprising of two dimensions. Cognitive skills
including beliefs, ideas and values that self-motivate and self-organize with technical skills
related to the informal know-how or individual and institutional tasks. With Wagner’s concept
of a social dimension of tacit knowledge that included managing oneself, managing tasks and
managing people. They developed a model of the three main dimensions: cognitive, technical
and social skills to measure tacit knowledge acquisition. (Insch, McIntyre, & Dawely, 2008)
Their results showed that individuals with higher cognitive, technical and general social skills
have a greater ability to acquire tacit knowledge. This study would argue that an individual who
has a high degree of social skills would also have a higher likelihood of developing interpersonal
workplace relationships that transferred tacit knowledge as well.
Method and Design
Description:
This study used a mixed methods explanatory design in order to gain a quantitative
perspective first that would lead into the development of the qualitative semi-structured
interview questions. This approach will allow the researcher to explore deeper social dimensions
as they relate to generational issues that may inhibit the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Sampling Selection & Strategy:
A purposeful sampling will be used in this study. They are adult males who work on the
floor of a US plastic netting manufacturing plant, as well as at least 9 key leaders from the
plant’s management team. There is a good mix of generations among the employees and thus the
strategy to canvass across a multi-generational population was beneficial. As well as the fact
that many of the older employees, have been with the manufacturing plant for over 25 years, will
provide the researcher with data to explore generational variables along with a vast array of tacit
knowledge they must have accumulated over their tenure.
Unit of Analysis:
The unit of analysis used in this study will be the workgroups within the manufacturing
plant.
Gathering Data:
Both quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered for this study. The quantitative
data will be collected, using a 34 question survey created by the researcher. It will be distributed
as a hard copy during the beginning of a mandatory safety meeting. Collection of the surveys
will be done by the plant manager and an HR generalist within the company during the same
safety meeting. Following the survey, data will be recorded into PSPP and a brief analysis of the
survey data will allow the researcher to conduct semi-structured interviews with at least 9 key
managers approximately 2-3 weeks after the survey is completed. Interview questions will be
dependent upon the survey results in order to explore deeper the social dimensions related to the
hypothesis.
Analyzing the Data:
In reviewing the data, the researcher will be looking for themes that intersect and connect
to both the generational aspects as well as the interpersonal relationship dynamics in order to
prove or disprove the hypothesis of:
H1: The lack of interpersonal relationships among inter-generational workgroups inhibits
or blocks the transfer of tacit knowledge.
This study argues that an individual who has a high degree of social skills would also have a
higher likelihood of developing interpersonal workplace relationships that transfer tacit
knowledge as well.
Maintaining Rigor, Credibility & Quality:
The 34 survey questions created by the researcher were not tested for credibility or
validity and thus the results of the study will not be validated.
Contextual Congruity:
Due to the researcher using a semi-structured interview process to collect the qualitative
data, careful attention will be paid to the factual data being collected. Responses given by
interview participants will not be taken out of context.
Results
The results of this study were acquired by using the PSPP software program. There were
43 adult males who took the survey and 9 male key leadership team members who participated in
face to face interviews only. Descriptive, Pearson’s Chi-Square and frequency tests were
conducted to determine the statistical significance of the one hypotheses, as well as examine any
possible inferences or new themes about the sample data. Table 1. Shows the descriptive
statistics of the 43 participants.
Table 1. Demographic Information
Mean
SD
Age
1.72
.67
Tenure
2.88
1.14
Demographic Frequencies:
1935-1965
Baby Boomers participants 17/43 or 39.53%
1966-1979
Gen Xer’s participants
21/43 or 48.84%
1980-1997
Millennial participants
5/43 or 11.63%
A total of 5 correlational analyses using Pearson’s Chi-Squared tests were conducted to
determine statistical significance.
H1: The lack of interpersonal relationships among inter-generational workgroups inhibits
or blocks the transfer of tacit knowledge.
The first Chi-Square test in Table 2. shows that the hypothesis is not statistically significant. In
other words, tacit knowledge transfer is not inhibited at this US manufacturing plant by the lack
of interpersonal relationships. The data indicated that the majority of employees are dissatisfied
with their workplace relationships not that there was a lack of interpersonal relationships.
However, there were three other statistically significant Chi-Square tests that added to the
body of available research that supports the social dynamics among workgroups and their
correlation to the transfer of tacit knowledge. The number of friends at work correlated with if
those friendships enable you to learn more skills was statistically significant indicating support
for the body of research that confirms the social dimensions related to knowledge transfer.
Additionally significant, was the correlation between employees treating each other with respect
and respect is something you earn. This Chi-Square test showed that at least 60% of employees
feel they respect a co-worker because he earned it. Sharing information among co-workers,
positively correlated with an employee’s tenure, indicated at least 93% of employees share
information regularly and a longer tenure equates to a greater degree of information being
shared.
Table 2. Pearson Chi-Square Crosstabs analysis:
1. What year were you born? 6. How satisfied are you with your workplace relationships?
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
A Symp.Sig (2tailed)
14.19
10
.165
Not statistically significant.
1. What year were you born? 5. Conwed does a good job at encouraging interpersonal
relationships to help us do our jobs.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
A Symp.Sig (2tailed)
2.41
4
.661
Not statistically significant.
1 What year were you born? 25. Do generational differences sometimes get in the way of you
doing your job at Conwed?
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
A Symp.Sig (2tailed)
4.02
6
.673
Not statistically significant.
12. Please circle the number of friends. 0-3, 4-7, 8 or more. 14. Have those friendships enabled
you to learn more skills for your job?
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
43.80
6
.000
******Yes statistically significant.
1. What year were you born? 15. I feel included at my workplace?
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
1.49
4
Not statistically significant.
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
.828
1. What year were you born? 20. Communication between older and younger workers is good.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
1.84
4
.766
Not statistically significant.
1. What year were you born? 26. My co-workers give me tools and resources to do my job well.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
3.36
6
.763
Not statistically significant.
16. Employees treat each other with respect. 21. I think respect is something you earn, not just
given to you.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig.(2tailed)
24.50
4
.000
******Yes statistically significant.
1. What year were you born? 28. Sharing information between employees happens regularly.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
.62
2
.735
Not statistically significant
1. What year were you born? 29. I tend to seek out more experienced workers when I need help
with my job.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
6.55
Not statistically significant
df
4
ASymp.Sig (2tailed)
.162
1. How long have you worked at Conwed? 28. Sharing information between employees
happens regularly.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig.(2tailed)
7.86
3
.049
******Yes statistically significant.
15. I feel included at my workplace. 20. Communication between older and younger workers is
good.
Pearson Chi-Square
Value
df
ASymp.Sig.(2tailed)
13.91
4
.008
******Yes statistically significant.
In order to make inferences about the social dynamics of the sample data, percentage
frequencies were run on all quantitative questions from the survey. These are listed below in
Table 3. One significant piece of data that again supports previous research listed was 74% of
the participants indicated they felt included at work and 79.07% indicated their co-workers were
trustworthy.
Table 3. Survey Frequencies:
1.
How long have you worked at Conwed?
0-1 yrs.
6 or 13.95%
2.
10-20 yrs.
6 or 13.95%
20-40 yrs.
19 or 44.19%
My co-workers give me a feeling of accomplishment.
No response
No
Yes
3.
2-10 yrs.
12 or 27.91%
5 or 11.63%
16 or 37.21%
22 or 51.16%
Conwed does a good job of encouraging inter-personal friendships to help us do our
jobs.
No response
No
Yes
2 or 4.65%
22 or 51.16%
19 Or 44.19%
4.
How satisfied are you with you workplace relationships?
No
Boomers
1
or
5.88%
Gen Xer’s 0
or o%
Millennial 0
or 0%
Total
1
or
2.33%
5.
Very
Dissatisfied
0
or 0%
Dissatisfied Neither
Satisfied
13
or 76.47%
1
or 5.88%
2
or 9.52%
9
or 42.86%
0
or 0%
2
or 4.65%
2
or 40%
24
or 55.81%
8
or
38.10%
2
or 40%
11
or
25.58%
1
or
5.88%
2
or
9.52%
0
or 0%
3
or
6.98%
There are plenty of opportunities to socially interact with co-workers.
No response
No
Yes
4 or 9.30%
18 or 41.86%
21 or 48.84%
9. Overall my co-workers are trustworthy.
No response
No
Yes
2 or 4.65%
7 or 16.28%
34 or 79.07%
12. Please circle the number of close friendships you have at work.
No response
2 or 4.65%
0-3 friendships
23 or 53.49%
4-7 friendships
13 or 30.23%
8 or more friendships
5 or 11.63%
14. Have those friendships enabled you to learn more skills for your job.
No response
2 or 4.65%
No
14 or 32.56%
Yes
27 or 62.79%
15. I feel included at my workplace.
Very
Satisfied
1
or 5.88%
0
or 0%
1
or 20%
2
or 4.65%
No response
No
Yes
Boomers
Gen Xer’s
Millennial
4 or 9.30%
7 or 16.28
32 or 74.42
No Response
1 or 5.88%
2 or 9.52%
1 or 20%
16. Employees treat each other with respect.
No response
No
Yes
No
2 or 11.76%
4 or 19.95%
1 or 20%
Yes
14 or 82.35%
15 or 71.43%
3 or 60%
6 or 13.95
11 or 25.58%
26 or 60.47 %
17. During my breaks I tend to socialize with my co-workers.
No response
5 or 11.63%
No
20 or 46.51%
Yes
18 or 41.86%
18. My generation demonstrates a commitment to quality.
No response
4 or 9.30%
No
8 or 18.60%
Yes
31 or 72.09%
19. I interact more with my co-workers from my own generation.
No response
2 or 4.65%
No
17 or 39.53%
Yes
24 or 55.81%
20. Communication between younger and older employees is good.
No response
3 or 6.98%
No
16 or 37.21%
Yes
24 or 55.81%
21. I think respect is something you earn, not just given to you.
No response
3 or 6.98%
No
2 or 4.65%
Yes
38 or 88.37%
25. Do generational differences get in the way of you doing your job here at Conwed?
No response
1 or 2.33%
No
23 or 53.49%
Yes
18 or 41.86%
26. My co-workers give me tools and resources to do my job well.
No response
No
Yes
6 or 13.95%
12 or 27.91%
34 or 55.81%
27. My co-workers and I share information in order to do our jobs better.
No response
0 or %
No
3 or 6.98%
Yes
40 or 93.02%
28. Sharing information between employees happens regularly.
No response
0 or 0%
No
3 or 6.98 %
Yes
40 or 93.02%
29. I tend to seek out more experienced workers when I need help with my job.
No response
0 or 0%
No
6 or 13.95%
Yes
36 or 83.72%
30. There is a formal procedure at Conwed to ensure that lessons learned on the plant floor get
passed along to others doing similar tasks.
No response
1 or 2.33%
No
34 or 79.07%
Yes
8 or 18.60%
31. I am more likely to pass knowledge about our workplace to members of my own generation.
No response
2 or 4.65%
No
27 or 62.79%
Yes
14 or 32.56%
For the qualitative portion of the study, the researcher conducted semi-structured face to
face interviews with 9 key leadership team members as well as asking seven qualitative
questions on the survey. Four themes emerged from the qualitative data. First, based on the
leaderships teams opinions there are generational differences that get in the way of them doing
their jobs. This contradicts the quantitative data. The second theme that emerged was that
almost all participants indicated that it was the lack of training programs available to employees
that influenced how tacit knowledge was transferred. Third, that having a unionized workforce
majority greatly influences many of the dynamics in play. None of the key leadership members
are part of the union while the remainder of the 43 participants who took the survey were
unionized. Lastly, that communication between older and younger employees was good or
positive. Which was supported by the quantitative data.
Limitations
This study used a mixed methods explanatory design that had specific limitations. The
34 survey questions created by the researcher were not tested for credibility or validity and thus
the results of the study are not validated statistically. The sample size was fairly small with only
43 participants. However, there were only 56 plant floor employees total thus 76% of the plant
floor employees participated in the study. Along those demographic lines, 88.37% of the
participants were either part of the baby boomer or gen X’er generations. This may have
effected the results specific to the generational aspects of the study. All of the participants,
including the key leadership members were males. This may have colored the data based on
male social dynamics and not given an accurate sample of our population overall.
The survey was designed to explore how tacit knowledge was transferred among
employees and as mentioned above with regards to themes that emerged out of the qualitative
data, this manufacturing organization did not have any formal effective training program in
place. Using inferential statistics it appears that this could be a major variable effecting the data.
There does not appear to be any consistent training methods or programs from one employee to
the next.
One final and important limitation to this study was the fact that all 43 plant floor
employees were part of a local union, while the 9 key leadership team members were not part of
the local union. This variable may have had adverse effects on the data as well because none of
the survey questions took that into consideration at all.
Conclusion
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to explore the generational diversity issues
related to major demographic changes, specifically with regards to inter-generational
relationships within a US manufacturing organization and the transfer of tacit knowledge to
younger generations of workers who may have learning styles that are widely different from
older generations. Although the hypotheses was not proven to be statistically significant, the
researcher thinks that the limitations of a lack of an effective training program and the fact that
all of the 43 plant floor employees belonged to a local union while the 9 key leadership members
did not, adversely effected the results of this study. There was notable difficulties with the
transfer of tacit knowledge from the older veteran employees to younger employees based on
much of the qualitative data collected, however, it may have more to do with the seniority
structure that belonging to a union produces. Having the union has created a workplace culture
that is populated by 39.53% of baby boomers who have a great deal of tacit knowledge but as
one 42 year veteran employee put it, “the more you know, the more work you gotta do and most
younger people don’t want to do manual labor anymore.’
Additionally specific themes that emerged in support of the social dynamic aspects were
the following:
•
Workplace inclusion
•
Co-workers sharing information regularly
•
Respect for each other
•
Trust each other
Relational trust & respect are essential elements for most forms of interdependent
relationships and are the basic ingredient of social capital. As referenced previously research
done by Pearce & Randell (2004), highlight that it is the social relationships that facilitate the
transfer of tacit knowledge and the data from this study indicated that as well. Yang & Farn’s
(2010) research, proved positively that employees can learn tacit knowledge from other
employees without much resistance, when the employee is found to be considered trustworthy in
their social network. This direct correlation supports the other research done on crossgenerational knowledge flows.
Appendix
Qualitative Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Name:
Job Title or dept.:
1.
How long have you worked at Conwed?
2.
Do generational differences sometimes get in the way of you doing your job?
Specific examples:
% of time
3.
Have training methods or tech. changed here at Conwed since you started?
4.
In your opinion, describe communication between older and younger co-workers.?
Describe any changes you have encountered?
Intergenerational Workplace Relationship Questionnaire & Assessment
Please answer the following questions based on your job experience here at Conwed.
1)
2)
What year were you born?
__ 1935-1965
__ 1966-1979
Baby boomers
Gen Xer’s
Gen Xer’s
Millennial
How long have you worked at Conwed?
__ 0-1yr __ 2-10yrs
4)
Millennial
The generation I identify with the most is? Please circle your answer.
Baby boomers
3)
__ 1980-1997
__ 10-20yrs
__ 20-40+yrs
My co-workers give me a feeling of accomplishment.
__ Yes __ No
5)
Conwed does a good job of encouraging inter-personal friendships to help us do our jobs.
__ Yes __ No
6)
How satisfied are you with your workplace relationships?
__ Very Satisfied __ Satisfied
7)
__ Neither
__ Dissatisfied
__ Very Dissatisfied
There are plenty of opportunities to socially interact with co-workers.
__ Yes __ No
8)
What kinds of work related activities have the biggest impact in building inter-personal relationships?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________
9)
Overall, my co-workers are trustworthy?
__ Yes
__ No
10) I tend to choose inter-personal relationships based on:
__ trustworthiness & loyalty
__ similar values & ethics
__ entertainment & common interests
__ all of the above
__ none of the above
11) How satisfied are you with the following:
Poor
Average
Good
*Loyalty of co-workers
__
__
__
*Trust of co-workers
__
__
__
*Work ethics of co-workers __
__
__
*Values of co-workers
__
__
__
12) Please circle the number of close friendships you have a t work:
0-3
4-7
8 or more
13) Of those close friendships how many of them are inter-generational (of a different generation from yours)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) Have those friendships enabled you to learn more skills for your job?
__ Yes __ No
15) I feel included at my workplace.
__ Yes __ No
16) Employees treat each other with respect.
__ Yes __ No
17) During my breaks, I tend to socialize with my co-workers.
__ Yes __ No
18) My generation demonstrates a commitment to quality.
__ Yes __ No
19) I interact more with co-workers from my own generation.
__ Yes __ No
20) Communication between older and younger employees is good.
__ Yes __ No
21) I think respect is something you earn, not just given to you.
__ Yes __ No
22) I think my generations top 3 values are: Please list them.
___________________________
____________________________
_____________________________
23) I view my own generation as:
Strongly Agree
Trustworthy &
Dependable
Loyal
Hardworking
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
24) What suggestions do you have for improving cross-generational relationships?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
25) Do generational differences sometimes get in the way of you doing your job here at Conwed?
__ Yes __ No
26) My co-workers give me tools and resources to do my job well.
__ Yes __ No
27) My co-workers and I share information in order to do our jobs better.
__ Yes __ No
28) Sharing information between employees happens regularly.
__ Yes __ No
29) I tend to seek out more experienced workers when I need help with my job.
__ Yes __ No
30) There is a formal procedure at Conwed to ensure that lessons learned on the plant floor get passed along to others doing
similar tasks.
__ Yes __ No
31) I am more likely to pass knowledge about our workplace to members of my own generation.
__ Yes __ No
32) What kinds of knowledge or information would make your job easier?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
33) What suggestions do you have to improve the quality of your job training?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
34) When you first began your job at Conwed, how did you learn the skills you needed to do your
job?____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
For office use only:
Action:
Date reviewed:
Request for Approval of Research with Human Participants
In Social and Behavioral Research
Institutional Review Board for Research with Humans
University of Northwestern – St. Paul
3003 Snelling Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55113
College and Federal policies require that each project involving studies on humans be reviewed to consider 1) the
rights and welfare of the individuals involved; 2) the appropriateness of the methods used to secure informed
consent; and 3) the risk and potential benefits of the investigation. . Research may not be initiated prior to
formal, written approval by the appropriate committee or person.
Please answer each item thoroughly, and put N/A for those that do not apply. Label each piece of information by
section letter (A – G), item number (1, 2, etc.), and use the boldface headers for each item. Proposals lacking
information will be returned without review.
Submit the completed form by e-mail to Don F. Johnson (dfjohnson@unwsp.edu), or if this is Northwestern student
research, to your research advisor. You will not receive this proposal back, so be sure you keep a copy of the
materials you submit. You will be notified by e-mail of the committee’s decision.
A. Identifying Information
1) Date – 7/ /14
2) Principal Investigator – Becky Kunz- GCE MOL UNWSP, 7665 Knollwood Dr., Mounds View, MN
55112 (763) 717-2824 rckunz@students.unwsp.edu.
3) Co-investigators – N/A
4) Project Title Intergenerational Relationships and the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge, Among Employees
in a Manufacturing Plant.
5) Inclusive Dates of Project –8/1 /14 - 9/30 /14
6) Research Advisor – UNWSP GCE MOL 3003 Snelling Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55113. Dr. Dale
Hutchcraft
7) Funding Agency – There is not funding agency involved.
8) Investigational Agents – N/A
B. Participants
1) Type of Participants – Adults
2) Institutional Affiliation – Conwed: Global Netting Solutions. 2810 Weeks Ave SE., Minneapolis, MN
55414
3) How Participants are Chosen – The participants were selected as workgroups by the manufacturing plant
manager.
4) How Participants are contacted – in person at the start of a monthly mandatory safety meeting at the
manufacturing plant.
5) Inducements – N/A. There will be no compensation for participating.
6) Monetary Charges – N/A. There is no charge for participating.
C. Informed Consent – Complete the informed consent form that includes all the elements in the sample consent
form at the end of this document. Attach a copy of your informed consent form to the proposal. For research with
minors or with vulnerable populations consent from parents or guardians is required in most cases.
D. Abstract and Protocol
1) Research Design – I will be doing a mixed-methods explanatory research design, to explore the
generational diversity issues related to demographic changes today. Specifically with regards to intergenerational relationships within a US manufacturing organization and the transfer of tacit knowledge to
younger generations of workers who have learning styles that are widely different from older generations.
2) Hypothesis – My hypothesis is: The lack of interpersonal relationships among inter-generational
workgroups inhibits or blocks the transfer of tacit knowledge.
3) Protocol – A mixed-method explanatory research design will be used for this study. For the quantitative
portion of the study a 34 question survey (created by the researcher and include in this application) will be
distributed to approximately 40 employees at the beginning of a safety meeting for a US manufacturer. This
is a voluntary survey. Participants will be given 15-20 minutes to complete the survey. Completed surveys
will be collected by the Plant Manager or HR Generalist and kept in a locked file in the HR office. The
researcher will come collect the completed surveys and input data into the PSPP program in order to
analyze data. After data has been entered and analyzed, the researcher will use that data to develop
questions to conduct semi-structured interviews with 9 key management staff. This qualitative data will
be cross-referenced with the quantitative data to explore themes related to the social dimensions of intergenerational workgroups and tacit knowledge transfer. These interviews will be conducted 2-3 weeks after
the survey.
E. Risks – No known risk identified.
F. Privacy – Names and personally identifying information will be eliminated after data collection and replaced
with alphanumeric designators. Results of this study but will not include any information that would identify any
participant. The HR generalist and the Plant Manager will receive a copy of the finished study without any
identifying information. Research data will only be kept on the secured laptop of the principle investigator in digital
form for 12 months, at which point data will be destroyed. Data from this study will only be displayed as group data
in any reports or presentations. Data will not be provided to other researchers for other studies following the
completion of this research.
1)
2) Physical stimuli – N/A
3) Deprivation – N/A
4) Deception – N/A
5) Sensitive information – As noted in the “privacy” section, no identifiable information will be used in the
final written summary of the research study. Quotations will only be used in a way that the participant
can’t be identified. Only an aggregate report will be provided to the HR generalist and Plant Manager of
the manufacturing company.
6) Offensive materials – N/A
7) Physical exertion – N/A
F. Confidentiality – The information obtained will be made available to myself, professors of the MOL program for
the Capstone course, HR generalist and the Plant Manager will receive a copy of the finished study without any
identifying information. Research data in the form of the paper survey’s will be collected and kept in a locked
cabinet within the HR department and all digital data will be will be kept on the secured laptop of the principle
investigator in digital form for 12 months, at which point data will be destroyed. Data from this study will only be
displayed as group data in any reports or presentations. Data will not be provided to other researchers for other
studies following the completion of this research.
G. Signatures – “I certify that the information furnished concerning the procedures to be taken for the protection of
human participants is correct. I will seek and obtain prior approval for any substantive modification in the proposal
and will report promptly any unexpected or otherwise significant adverse effects in the course of this study.”
Please accept my electronic signature to satisfy the statement above:
Becky Kunz, MOL Candidate 7/12/14
(We were not instructed to have the research advisor sign this information).
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
University of Northwestern – St. Paul
Saint Paul, MN 55113
Intergenerational Relationships and the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge, Among Employees
in a US Manufacturing Plant
You are invited to participate in an important research study aiming to increase our knowledge about intergenerational relationships
and the transfer of knowledge to younger generations. You have been identified as a possible participant due to your experience
and employment with a multi-generational workforce. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before
agreeing to participate in the study.
My name is Becky Kunz and I am the Principle Investigator of this study, I am a graduate student at the University of NorthwesternSt. Paul, studying Organizational Leadership with special emphasis on generational diversity issues. In this study we hope to
explore interpersonal workplace relationships and the transfer of tacit knowledge to younger generations of workers who may have
learning styles that are different from older generations. The aim of this study is to help facilitate methods and strategies that
increase the flow of tacit knowledge across generations.
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Dale Hutchcraft, MOL., University Northwestern – St. Paul
The study is not being funded by any organization.
Description of subject involvement
If you agree to be part of the research study, you will be asked to respond to a short, 5-15 minute survey titled Intergenerational
Workplace Relationships Survey & Assessment Interview. Most questions require you to rate the question on a 5 point scale.
Several members from the manufacturing plant’s management team will also be interviewed using a semi-structured interview that
should take about 15-30 minutes.
Benefits
Although you may not directly benefit from being in this study, others may benefit because of the data gathered that will help
improve leadership effectiveness and training methods used.
Risks and discomforts
There are no risks associated with this study because the data collection is completely
anonymous and the topic is not sensitive.
Compensation
No compensation is being provided to the participants who participated in the study. One participant who completes the survey by
the deadline will be randomly selected to win a $25 target gift card after the survey and interviews are completed.
Confidentiality
To protect your privacy, names and personally identifying information will be eliminated after data collection and replaced with
alphanumeric designators. We plan to publish the results of this study but will not include any information that would identify you.
The HR generalist and the Plant Manager will receive a copy of the finished results without any identifying information. There are
reasons why people other than the researcher may need to see the information you provide as part of this study. This includes
organizations responsible for making sure the research is done safely and properly which is the University of Northwestern-St. Paul
MOL Program.
Research data will only be kept on the secured laptop of the principle investigator in digital form for 12 months, at which point data
will be destroyed. Data from this study will only be displayed as group data in any reports or presentations. Data will not be
provided to other researchers for other studies following the completion of this research.
Voluntary nature of the study
Participating in this study is completely voluntary. Even if you decide to participate now, you
may change your mind and stop at any time. If you decide to withdraw early, your responses and information will be discarded and
will not be used in the final data selection.
Contact information
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Becky Kunz at (763) 221-9865 or rckunz@students.unwsp.edu. or Dr.
Dale Hutchcraft, MOL Program Director, UNW – (651) 628-3408 or drhutchcraft@unwsp.edu.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or wish to obtain information,
ask questions or discuss any concerns about this study with someone other than the
researcher(s), please contact the University of Northwestern Institutional Review Board, 3003 Snelling Avenue North
Saint Paul, MN 55113 or Don F. Johnson, 651-631-5693 (dfjohnson@unwsp.edu).
Statement of Consent
I have read the above information. I have asked questions as needed and have received answers. I consent to participate
in the study.
_____________________________________
Printed Name
_____________________________________
Signature
___________________
Date
References
Aldisent, L. M. (2002). Valuing People! How Human Capital Can Be Your Strongest Asset.
Chicago, IL: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Connell, Klein, J.H., & Powell, P.L. (2003). It’s tacit knowledge but not as we know it:
redirecting the search for knowledge. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 54,
140-152.
Granovetter MS. (1983) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. 6:13601380.
Huang, S.C., Liu, T.C., & Warden, C.A. (2005) The Tacit Knowledge Flow of R&D Personnel
and Its Impact on R&D Performance. Asia Pacific Management Review. 10(4) 275-286.
Insch, G. S., McIntyre, N., & Dawely, D. (2008). Tacit Knowledge: A Refinement and Empirical
Test of the Academic Tacit Knowledge Scale. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 561-579.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2004). Measuring the Strategic Readiness of Intangible Assets.
Harvard Business Review, 52-60.
MS-ITS Capstone team. (2007). Cross-generational knowledge flows in edge organizations.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107.
McNeal, R. (2011). A Work of Heart (Updated Edition ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. Relational Embeddedness: Social Capital and Managerial
Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1129-1151.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 242-266.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational
Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Pearce, J.L., Randel, A.E. (2004) Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social
inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 8198.
Polanyi, M. (1958) Personal Tacit Knowledge, IL: The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
US Dept. Of Labor. (n.d.). http://www.dol.gov
Wagner, R.K., (1987). Tacit Knowledge in Everyday Intelligence Behavior. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology. 52, 1236-1247.
Yang, S., & Farn, C. (2010). Investigating Tacit Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing from the
Perspective of Social Relationships-A Multilevel Model. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 15, 167-185.