Degree Project
Master’s degree
Knowledge sharing between different generations in
engineering field
Author: Arina Badakhova, Reinis Virza Supervisor: LenkaKlimplová
Examiner:Mårten Hugosson
Subject/main field of study: International Business Administration Course code: FÖ3027
Credits: 15hp
Date of examination: 2020.06.01
At Dalarna University it is possible to publish the student thesis in full text in DiVA. The publishing is open access, which means the work will be freely accessible to read and download on the internet. This will significantly increase the dissemination and visibility of the student thesis.
Open access is becoming the standard route for spreading scientific and academic information on the internet. Dalarna University recommends that both researchers as well as students publish their work open access.
I give my/we give our consent for full text publishing (freely accessible on the internet, open access):
Yes ☒ No ☐
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of particular study is to explore individuals’ perceptions of knowledge sharing and its obstacles in a multigenerational engineering company. This study focuses on two groups of individuals: employees and managers. The perception of knowledge sharing and how differently generations perceive it is covered in this study. The obstacles which could occur during knowledge sharing between different generations in the engineering field are explored. The role of management in knowledge sharing processes is also covered.
Methodology: To explore individuals’ perceptions of knowledge sharing and its obstacles in a multigenerational engineering company. A qualitative research approach was applied, using single company case study strategy. The case company is one of the leading construction engineering companies in Latvia. The primary data was gathered by conducting 12 semi-structured interviews, 3 interviews per every generation (Millennial, Generation X and Baby boomer) and 3 interviews with managers. The secondary data was obtained from the company, which included internal documents covering the general information about the company, guidelines and policies. By the usage of primary and secondary data triangulation of the study was reached.
Findings: The thesis provides analysis of knowledge sharing and its obstacles within the multigenerational workforce of a construction engineering company. The perceptions of three generational cohorts such as Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials are presented. The conceptual framework for the study was built on the basis of three dimensions such as organizational. individual and technological obstacles. Based on the conceptual framework, authors brought up several propositions which supported the analysis process. The analysis showed that there are differences in perception of knowledge sharing and obstacles connected with it between engineers of different generations.
Originality: There has not been any research about knowledge sharing between different generations in Latvia nor in Northern Europe, in general. The engineering field is a knowledge intensive sector, therefore knowledge sharing is crucial. Labor force still contains three different generations, thus it is important to explore whether engineering companies in Latvia have faced knowledge sharing obstacles, as it is a rapidly developing sector in this particular country.
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, generations, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, engineering field, Latvia.
Declaration of own work
Authors have written this Master Thesis independently. Any ideas or data taken from other authors or other sources have been fully referenced.
Arina Badakhova Reinis Virza
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, the authors would like to thank our supervisor and course coordinator Lenka Klimplová for being our supervisor throughout the whole process and for giving valuable feedback on how to improve the paper.
Secondly, the authors would like to express our gratitude to our families and friends, who supported us to reach the final stage.
We would like to thank our fellow students who gave valuable feedback on how to improve the paper, but especially, the lecturer Tao Yang whose academic knowledge and specific feedback was very valuable in order to finish the paper.
Last but not least, we thank the specific engineering company which accepted to participate and to be analysed in the Master Thesis. Without the company’s support this paper would not have been possible to be completed.
Table of contents
Introduction ... 6
1. Theoretical overview of knowledge sharing, organizational and individual obstacles and technologies... 11
1.1 Knowledge sharing, perception and generations ... 11
1.1.1 Knowledge sharing ... 11
1.1.2 Perception and generations ... 12
1.2 Institutional theory and organizational obstacles ... 15
1.3 Individual obstacles ... 18
1.4 Technologies and Technological obstacles ... 20
1.5 Summary of the key concepts and propositions ... 21
2. Methodology ... 24
2.1 Research approach and strategy ... 24
2.2 The case company description ... 25
2.3 Research process ... 26
2.3.1 Primary data ... 26
2.3.2 Secondary data ... 29
2.4 Quality of the research ... 30
2.5 Ethical considerations ... 30
2.6 Limitations of the research ... 31
3. Research results and analysis ... 32
3.1 Perception ... 32
3.2 Organizational level obstacles to knowledge sharing ... 34
3.2.1 Organizational atmosphere and structure ... 35
3.2.2 Formal mechanisms ... 38
3.2.3 Reward and recognition system ... 42
3.3 Individual level obstacles to knowledge sharing ... 44
3.3.1 Trust ... 44
3.3.2 Position & power and fear to lose them ... 46
3.3.3 Lack of time ... 48
3.3.4 Knowledge background ... 49
3.4 Technological obstacles ... 50
3.4.1 The choice of information and communication technology (ICT) ... 50
4. Discussion ... 56
Limitations ... 61
References ... 62
Appendix ... 68
Table of tables Table 1 The characteristics of three generations in the workplace... 14
Table 2 Description of the sample... 27
Table 3 Research process description... 28
Introduction
With the emergence of knowledge-based economy, increasing number of global companies and intensive competition on the market, in order to be sustainable,
competitive and successful organizations need to be attentive to their organizational knowledge (Oye, Salleh & Noorminshah, 2011). Knowledge has always been a crucial component in companies, however, only starting from the mid-90's it has been
acknowledged as the main source of competitive advantage (Stewart, 1998). If companies need to exploit the knowledge they have, it is essential to understand how knowledge is made, shared, and utilized inside the company (Ipe, 2003).
Knowledge sharing can be defined in numerous ways, but in simple words, it is the process through which skills and information are transferred from one person to another, but also it can be done to a group in a company (Hajric, n.d.). Knowledge sharing represents a huge importance for companies as it transforms individual
knowledge into organizational knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). It stands for the generation of new ideas, knowledge creation and problem solving. Beside this, according to Bricic and Mihelic (2015), knowledge sharing is a vital component for sustainable development, creativity and innovation achievement and overall organizational success. Evenmore, Contreras-Pacheco, Claasen and Nishant (2017) state that recently, knowledge sharing initiatives have appeared as one of the most important aspects to strengthen innovation capabilities and competitive advantage of the company. According to Postolache (2017), other reasons for its importance are better problem-solving in the organization, facilitating decision making, stimulating organizations’ growth, and reducing losses. These aspects clearly show that organizations these days should pay attention to knowledge sharing processes even more as before.
At first, knowledge sharing may seem as a simple and quick process, but it is not as straightforward. According to Ipe (2003), there are four factors which influence knowledge sharing processes in companies: the nature of knowledge, opportunities to share, intention to share, and the culture of the work environment. Problems and barriers can occur in every of these aspects. Hong, Suh, and Koo (2011) have divided the
knowledge sharing barrier into two types: individual and organizational. But later Sharma and Singh (2014) in their work, apart from organizational and individual barriers,
distinguished technological obstacles which influence the effectiveness of knowledge sharing processes. For example, the knowledge can be too complicated to share or company management does not put enough effort into facilitating knowledge sharing
processes which are regarded as the organizational level barriers (Hong, Suh & Koo, 2011). At the technological level, barriers constitute lack of integration of technology, reluctance to use IT systems and lack of training (Sharma and Singh, 2014). A more personal reason is highlighted by Kramer (1999), who states that trust is one of the cornerstones of successful knowledge sharing. Trust is meant not only between individuals, but also trust towards knowledge, meaning that if people do not trust the knowledge which they are getting, then they are unlikely to make full use of the gained knowledge. Building trust between individuals usually takes a long time, even more if it needs to be established between two individuals from different generations. The trust becomes easier when people feel that they are understood, and usually people from the same generations have more commonalities and shared values, which leads to better connection and comprehension of each other. The trust is straightly connected to communication and interaction. Thus, the trust between dissimilar people, particularly from different age groups, can be established through constant interactions, which lead to better understanding of each other. Therefore, workers of different generations need to have an open dialogue about their differences. (Lorenz, 2008)
As the Millennials, also known as Generation Y (generation of those born 1981-2000), are taking over the labour market more and more, organizations should adapt their management approaches as well. Although Millennials are expected to dominate in the labour market by 2020, 3 other generations, such as Baby Boomers, generation X and Generation Z (generation of those born after 2000) are present in companies(Gale, 2019). Baby boomers (the generation of those born 1946-1964) are still taking part in the labour market, although the majority of them are out of the labour market. These days, the most represented generations in the workforce are generation X (generation of those born 1965-1980) and Millennials. It is worth mentioning that soon the Generation Z will rapidly enter the labour market and, according to research, many employers believe that representatives of the Generation Z will start their professional life even earlier than Millennials did (Beall, 2017). The challenge for the managers of the company is to make a good cooperation between all previously mentioned generations, and it can not be achieved without communication.
Knowledge sharing, being a human process, cannot occur between people without communication and interaction (Boer, 2005). According to Sanaei, Javernick-Will and Chinowsky (2013), managers should focus more on making connections between employees of different generations, meaning that management of the company
should facilitate and provide interaction options for employees from different
generations. It can be assumed that the younger generation obviously prefers web-based communication, however, study by Pilotte and Evangelou (2012), in which Baby Boomer and Millennial generations were analysed, shows totally the opposite, that both Baby Boomers and Millennials clearly prefer face-to-face communication. These are just a couple of aspects which managers of companies need to deal with when talking about managing different generations in an organization, however, Bencsik, Juhász and
Horváth-Csikós (2016) in their study noticed that communication and interaction between different generations may bring not only positive results, but also cause conflicts. Thus, dealing with different generations can be a complicated task for the management
(Bencsik, Juhász & Horváth-Csikós, 2016). In the study conducted by McNichols (2010) the author concludes that in the engineering field generation gap makes it difficult to share tacit knowledge, therefore, management support is crucial in the knowledge sharing process. Previously mentioned studies by Sanaei, Javernick-Will and Chinowsky (2013), Pilotte and Evangelou (2012), Bencsik, Juhász and Horváth-Csikós (2016) and
McNichols (2010) highlight that the management of the company should take a bigger role when talking about knowledge management, and that generation differences directly influence knowledge sharing processes, and barriers appear even bigger, when company is operating in a field where innovation, teamwork and knowledge creation is crucial, like engineering is.
In a knowledge intensive field as engineering is, workers are often the ones who are creating the knowledge, so workers in the engineering field are usually also
responsible for the sharing of the knowledge (Robinson, 2010). Nonetheless, the processes of knowledge sharing between engineers and, evenmore, among different generations, are fairly undiscovered. According to McKay (2016), in the engineering field successful knowledge sharing between different generations is even more crucial than in many other fields, as the particular sector is developing rapidly, but, at the same time, there are basic and fundamental things which have been used as guidelines in the field for many years. Therefore knowledge sharing is taking place in both ways, from older generation to younger and vice versa. As McKay (2016) states, there are many things which workers could learn from other generations in the engineering field. In the research by Zhu (2016), the author explored that younger engineers in Asia are more opened to get new knowledge in a working place and, on the other hand, more
new knowledge, as much as younger employees, this phenomenon could cause problems in knowledge sharing processes. Zhu (2016) also concludes that in today’s knowledge economy, the lack of opportunities to learn and get new knowledge in the engineering field usually is one of the main reasons for employees to quit their job and seek for a new one. Therefore, it proves one more time that knowledge sharing between different
generations has to be taken seriously from the company's management side, if the organization wants to stay competitive in the market. Thus, today’s challenge for organizations is to provide support in managing such problems, thereby ensuring the successful share of knowledge between representatives of different generational cohorts (Samadi, Wei, Seyfee & Yusoff, 2015).
In Latvia, the construction engineering field in the last years is experiencing rapid growth, by the reasons of availability of well-educated workforce and developed and stable economical situation in the country (Būvniecības, 2018). Evenmore, according to statistics by Latvijas Buvnieki (Būvniecības nozares rādītāji, n.d.), the export of
engineering services from Latvia is increasing year by year and, in order to maintain this evolution, it is essential to utilize the knowledge of employees as effectively as possible. In such a specific field like engineering, if the company wants to be successful, it has to have some competitive advantage, and management of knowledge within the company in this case can play a crucial role. The authors of this paper chose to explore the knowledge sharing situation in the engineering field in Latvia also by the reason that, in the last years, major improvements have taken place in terms of laws for construction companies, as the country pays attention to decreasing illegal activities in the construction field. Furthermore, at the end of 2019, the country set the minimum salary for construction workers in Latvia, so it is another motivator for employers to utilize workforce and the knowledge in the most effective way (2020. Gada jaunumi būvniecības nozarē, 2020). Lastly, there is no research done about Latvia and Northern Europe regarding knowledge sharing between different generations, so the authors with the particular thesis are going to fulfill the existing research gap by conducting a single company case study research.
Before conducting the study it is essential to consider delimitations of the research. According to Dixon, Mercado and Knowles (2013) engineering field can be considered as masculine sector, therefore one of delimitation of study is the choice of male gender for the particular research. Another delimitation of the study is the time constraint, time is limited for researchers so there is set specific number of interviews which will be conducted.
In order to understand how to achieve successful knowledge sharing between multigenerational workers, it is important to understand what interferes with their mutual understanding and comfortable communication, therefore, the specific topic has become essential to investigate and there is a lack of research done, as mentioned before.
Therefore the aim of the particular thesis is to explore engineers’ perceptions of knowledge sharing and its obstacles in multigenerational construction
engineering company.
To reach the aim of the thesis, the following research questions have to be answered:
● How are different generations perceiving knowledge sharing processes?
● Are there differences in perception of knowledge sharing processes between
employees and managers?
● Are there differences in the perception of obstacles in knowledge sharing between
generations?
● How are different generations overcoming obstacles related to knowledge sharing?
1. Theoretical overview of knowledge sharing, organizational and individual obstacles and technologies
This chapter of the paper provides a theoretical overview of the study. In order to complete the study, the theoretical framework had to be built. Theoretical framework of the thesis consists of four major parts, where the first part covers concepts of perception and knowledge sharing and their connection to the generational cohorts to make readers familiar with these phenomena. Three other parts describe three domains of knowledge sharing obstacles and their connection to the generational cohorts. As the basis for the categorization of the knowledge sharing obstacles for the particular thesis, the authors used the study done by Sharma and Singh (2014) combining with the research of Hong, Suh, and Koo (2011). In order to fulfill the aim of the particular study, the obstacles were categorized into three domains, such as organizational, individual and technological, due to their significant effect on knowledge sharing in the engineering construction field. After each part, the authors bring out the propositions connected to the perception of knowledge sharing and its obstacles of different generations which were tested during the study.
1.1 Knowledge sharing, perception and generations 1.1.1 Knowledge sharing
Knowledge related issues are becoming more and more crucial for companies’ operations (Kim, Lee, Paek & Lee, 2012). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing at the workplace have appeared to be topics of great interest for organizations and businesses (Ozlati, 2012). With the process of knowledge sharing individual knowledge is transforming into the organizational which, in its turn, is becoming economic value (Ipe, 2003). Often there is a knowledge of specific employees, that they share with colleagues, which leads to real success of a company.
Knowledge can be divided in two types - tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is usually gained from personal experience and it is more challenging to transfer than explicit knowledge, which can be expressed in words, numbers or graphs. (Tacit and Explicit Knowledge, n.d.) According to Hashimoto and his colleagues (2011), engineers acquire tacit knowledge at the working place and in the teams which are led by an experienced supervisor. Even more, authors state that absence of a more experienced manager or supervisor could be very costly for the organization, given the reason that it takes longer time for a newcomer to rise to a decent level of productivity for the
knowledge in the engineering field can make the learning process faster and therefore more effective. Authors conclude that sharing of the knowledge, both tacit and explicit, can help newcomers to adapt faster in the working place.
Academics and researchers give different definitions to the concept of knowledge sharing depending on the context they use it in. Van Den Hooff and De Ridder (2004) suggest it is a process where individuals mutually exchange their tacit and explicit knowledge to create new knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also support the importance of individual employees in the process of knowledge creation, which means organizations cannot create knowledge without people who possess it. Hendriks (1999) proposed that knowledge sharing requires the involvement of at least two parties – one who possesses the knowledge and another one who receives the knowledge. Individual knowledge, including information, experience, skills or expertise, should be shared with other individual or groups of individuals in order to become effective. Knowledge sharing is basically a process of making knowledge, which is held by one individual, understandable and available by others. An organization’s success in managing the knowledge is highly dependent on people – its workers, who actually create, share and use this knowledge. (Ipe, 2003) In other words, to get the greatest outcome, workers should have the same desire to share and receive the knowledge and jointly create new one. (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004)
Knowledge sharing refers to the ability to collaborate with others in order to solve problems, develop new ideas and implement them. It can be done via face to face
communication or written correspondence, as well as by documenting and organizing knowledge for others. (Wang & Noe, 2010) However, very frequently, employees
perceive knowledge sharing as a negative phenomenon, which may lead to the unpleasant consequences such as loss of the position, power or status (Hislop, 2018). Although the perception of knowledge sharing can be different among individuals.
1.1.2 Perception and generations
As the particular topic is closely connected with a person and his (her) perception of knowledge sharing, it is worth taking a look at what exactly perception is, how it is made and what can influence it. Perception is defined in many different ways, however, in general, it is an insensible process, when a person takes in sensory facts and details from the environment and utilizes this knowledge to construct a person's own version of reality (Influences on Perception, n.d.). In other words, it means that perception can be influenced and framed by different conditions all over the person. According to Robins
and Judge (2012), many factors can shape perception and these factors usually reside in the person (perceiver), the object which is perceived, or the environment in which the perception is made.
More specifically, according to Kenny and Funder (2020), perception can mainly be influenced by past experiences, education, culture, values, assumptions and
expectations. It is generally recognized that generational cohorts are composed by people experiencing the same historical events and sharing similar values emphasised during this particular time. Shared history and social interactions result in distinctive values,
attitudes, behaviours, mind-sets and preferences, and thus they create similarities between members of generational cohorts. (Murray, Toulson & Legg, 2011) Therefore, it can be assumed that generation can act as one of the major influences of perception, as Rossem (2016) in her research states that it is crucial to understand and notice the differences in perceptions between different generations at a working place. Although everybody is different and each individual is unique, taking into account the core values and
characteristics within cohorts may lead to enhancement of team work, cooperation and management activities (Hahn, 2011).
Each generation performs different behaviour at the workplace (Hoole & Bonnema, 2015). They also differently perceive relationships at work, Baby Boomers establish good contacts as a contributor to work satisfaction, while from Generation X and Y perspective establishing relationships should bring benefits, such as potential promotion, privileges or decision-making opportunities (Bricic & Mihelic, 2015). Each generation has its strengths and weaknesses, and it is important to take all of them into account in the age diverse workplace. Table 1 (page 15) contains main characteristics of three generations - Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials in the workplace.
Table 1
The characteristics of three generations in the workplace
Generation Characteristics
Baby Boomer Give maximum effort, results driven, “live to work”, tend to work hard (higher chance of being workaholics), very loyal, individualistic, self- absorbed, maybe insulted by continuous feedback, prefer one-on-one coaching, may feel uncomfortable interacting with authority figures, value company commitment, want to feel deference and more weight given to their opinions
Generation X Learn quickly, like informality, seek for life and work balance, self- reliant, “work to live”, want job flexibility, result- driven but adopting to their preferences, do not like control, only work as hard as needed, not impressed with titles, fine with interacting with authorities, want to be listened to, want to be held in esteem
Millennial Cannot deal with failure, dislike working long hours, like informality, learn quickly, enthusiastic, embrace diversity, good in collaborative work environments, can be fickle, want to be put on the fast- track whether they deserve this or not, do not want to work overtime, freedom is important, “work to live”, think that respect should be earned, want to be listened to, want to be held in esteem
Sources: Macky, Gardner & Forsyth (2008); Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman & Lance (2010); Tolbize (2008)
Difficulties between generations may occur because of errors of attribution, meaning that individuals should emphasize personal attributes and try to ignore situational aspects in judging others' behavior. Also misunderstanding or difference in perceptions could cause problems between generations. Effective communication is, thus, critical for age diverse companies. (Tolbize, 2008) Companies that recognize the
challenge need to create strategies for knowledge sharing which are applicable for multigenerational workforce (Bricic & Mihelic, 2015). Therefore, authors have brought out Proposition 1:
● Proposition 1: There are differences in perception of knowledge sharing among Baby
Boomer, Generation X and Millennial workers.
1.2 Institutional theory and organizational obstacles
The ability to share and integrate the knowledge within an organization is
considered now as a competitive advantage, as the modern world has become knowledge oriented. Previous research has suggested that a management system in combination with intangible rules followed by employees can enhance knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing practices can be effectively guided by institutional system. (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014)
Institutional theory offers valuable theoretical lenses for understanding knowledge related issues within organizations. Institutional theory has gained popularity and has been applied in a number of scientific fields. Institutional theory perspective refers to the set of formal rules, norms and beliefs which influence organizations and their members and which are expected to be followed by them (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014). It has become a powerful explanation for actions undertaken both by companies and individuals (Dacin, Goodstein & Scott, 2002).
From the institutional perspective, organizations operate within a social
framework (Oliver, 1997). Scott in his work (1987) claimed that organizational structure is an adaptive mechanism which is evolving in reaction to commitments of participants and diverse interventions from external environment. Thus, according to institutional theory, organizational decisions are not encouraged only by rational efficiency objectives and legitimacy concerns, but also by social and cultural factors (Scott, 1987). Meyer and Rowan (1977) through their study applied the ideas that institutionalized rules are built on societal behaviours, and they are socially defined as real. Institutional norms provide a basis for predicting the behaviours of others and preparing suitable responses (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014). On the basis of institutional theory (Scott, 1987), institutional norms can be defined as a combination of managerial systems with formal rules and regulations, and social norms such as informal practices, customs and beliefs. Actions of management and the leaders of companies may have a positive influence on employees' sharing behaviors. (Bricic & Mihelic, 2015). They may encourage workers for better cooperation and communication, thus enhancing knowledge sharing activities. Institutional norms may even stimulate workers to renounce personal interests for the sake of organizational interests. (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014)
Organizational context plays an important role in stimulation of knowledge sharing. It addresses the comfortable conditions at workplace, right corporate atmosphere and job satisfaction (Vajjhala & Vucetic, 2013). Institutional norms influence workers’
intentions toward knowledge sharing and working processes in general. (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014). Organizational culture is very powerful, it influences daily work activities and practices, and shapes behaviors of the employees and the context of social
interactions (Riege, 2005). Organizational values such as contribution to the common business, sense of involvement, and trust are very important for knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2003). Unsupportive culture and restrictive working environment may affect working activities (Riege, 2005).
Insufficient reward and recognition system may negatively affect processes of
sharing knowledge among employees. The reward system may act as a crucial
component in regulation of knowledge flows within an organization (Kim & Lee, 2004). However, only monetary and tangible rewards can be also perceived demeaning by professionals. They expect intrinsic rewards, and they are motivated already by the involvement in the work or project. (Ipe, 2003) Only tangible rewards will not help to sustain the system, the system of incentives should imply a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Lack of strategy and unclear organizational objectives or lack of
perceived benefits for the employees tend to become barriers to knowledge sharing
(Razmerita, Kirchner, & Nielsen, 2016).
Knowledge sharing between workers in an organization requires communication (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). Open communication assumes that people exchange actively their thoughts and ideas. Oye, Salleh and Noorminshah (2011) in their work mentioned that the lack of sharing and communication culture can decline knowledge sharing and shorten the flows of valuable information across the organization. The trusting atmosphere within an organization including the trust in management also plays an important role and helps workers to overcome doubts connected with knowledge sharing. Thus, lack of leadership direction and managerial support in terms of communication and knowledge sharing values may also act as an obstacle for the knowledge sharing behaviors of employees. (Kim & Lee, 2004). Without a good
established trusting environment, people are not willing to share the knowledge, as they are afraid of being betrayed, used, replaced or cheated. (Smaliukienė, Bekešienė, Chlivickas & Magyla, 2017)
Pleasant atmosphere for trust and communication within organization together increase employees’ participation and their performance (Thomas, Zolin & Hartman, 2009). Moreover, for the leaders and management, trust also acts as a way of influence and they mainly influence through the communication. Thus, trust and communication
are closely interconnected and their relation is crucial for building working partnerships. (Savolainen, Lopez-Fresno & Ikonen, 2014)
Institutional norms influence employee knowledge sharing (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014). Successful knowledge sharing requires a clearly defined management system and norms based on social obligation and expectations (Oliver, 1997). Thus, when
organizations want to enhance knowledge sharing, they should design organizational norms in order to guide employees’ behavior and performance. Human resource
management strategies can be used by organizations to enhance workers’ willingness to share the knowledge. The development of the reward and recognition system, as well as constant training, can increase the amount of knowledge transfers and their quality. Mentoring system and support of management are good ways to transmit expectations and regulations. (Wang, Tseng & Yen, 2014)
With a multigenerational workforce, all mentioned above may play even more crucial roles. The research of Hoole and Bonnema (2015) showed that different generational groups perceive and complete work differently. Therefore, the authors assume that the behaviors connected with knowledge sharing at the workplace may vary among generational cohorts as well. Baby Boomers tend to demonstrate extremely normative commitment in the workplace as they seek to maintain employment (Dixon, Mercado & Knowles, 2013). Thus, it can be assumed that managerial guidance and formal mechanisms may be stronger motivators of knowledge sharing for them rather for other generations. Generation X and Millennials put major emphasis on the work-life balance and they stand for a more informal working environment. Generation X prefer minimal supervision, and representatives from Millennial generation tend to provide their services for better benefits and rewards. (Hoole and Bonnema, 2015) Thus, an
insufficient reward system may act as a more significant barrier for the younger generation rather than for representatives of the Baby Boomer generation. However, organizational culture and strategy may increase sharing culture in general for all
generations. Thus, the authors brought out Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Proposition 4: ● Proposition 2: Knowledge sharing obstacles can appear without formal guidance for
Baby boomer generation.
● Proposition 3: Informal working atmosphere for Generation X and Millennials helps
to overcome knowledge sharing obstacles.
● Proposition 4: Reward and recognition system is a primary way for Millennials to
1.3 Individual obstacles
Beside the organizational factors which were discussed before and were
connected with management activities, organizational culture and structure, there are also personal obstacles, and they may affect knowledge sharing processes as well. Bricic and Mihelic (2015) in their study distinguished two sets of individual factors influencing knowledge sharing at the workplace. They categorized these factors into intrapersonal and interpersonal. First of all, knowledge sharing is an intrapersonal issue, which is connected to personal motivation and willingness. The decision to share knowledge will depend primarily on workers’ desire to do so. Then, interpersonal factors which require interaction between people and are linked with collaboration and communication. So, at this level, the nature of working relationships will determine the decision to share the knowledge.
Knowledge sharing depends on individual or personal characteristics of an employee. These characteristics are the internal essence of a human which includes values, beliefs and perceptions (Zawawi et al., 2011). At this level, barriers which affect the knowledge sharing process usually include such factors as lack of trust and time, fear
to share, communication issues, cultural differences and focus on power (Riege, 2005). Power is connected to the formal position or to the personal status of the employee,
which includes individual qualities and skills. Even being interested in sharing knowledge, due to the time constraints, workers might not be able to identify those colleagues who are in need of their knowledge (Riege, 2005). Fear to share may appear because of unawareness of further actions of management or colleagues, their attitudes. Riege (2005) also includes differences in experience and education to the potential barriers for successful knowledge sharing.
As it was mentioned before, communication is a key component which is needed for knowledge sharing occurrence (Boer, 2005). Thus, many researchers noticed that the ability to share the knowledge mainly depends on the personal communication skills, both
verbal and written (Riege, 2005). Sharma and Singh (2013) in their study also mentioned non- verbal communication barriers, such as inappropriate signal-gestures and facial
expressions. They may be confusing during knowledge sharing processes. Furthermore, beside the high importance of trust on organizational level, it can be considered as a crucial element for the successful implementation of knowledge sharing on personal level as well (Vajjhala & Vucetic, 2013). The level of trust between employees has a direct impact on the volume and quality of the shared knowledge. On the individual level two
forms of trust are distinguished: knowledge-based trust when it is built upon information and person’s thinking about the trust in another person and affect-based trust, when people are connected emotionally. But it is important to notice that trust contains not only trust of individuals in each other, but also trust in knowledge, which is being transferred. (Smaliukienė, Bekešienė, Chlivickas & Magyla, 2017) Thus, without trust, the
knowledge sharing process will not be smooth, or maybe will not happen at all.
Individual factors also contain age and gender. Age represents special interest for the particular research. In the research done by Van Dyke, Haynes, and Ferguson-Mitchell (2009), it is noticed that with aging, the cognitive functions and abilities may decline, such as reduction of memory or comprehension abilities, and therefore decline in the quality of knowledge sharing processes. However, despite many stereotypes, older employees are still valuable resources for the company and they can contribute to the success of an organization (Hoole & Bonnema, 2015). It may be assumed that they may appear not very efficient receivers, but they are extremely valuable as transmitters of knowledge and experience. However, with their intent to preserve the working place, older workers may hoard the knowledge from younger generations to keep their position and power. Further, the generational cohort may be perceived as social group
membership, which may cause psychologically distinctive effects in social behaviors, which means that workers from a particular generational cohort may feel more
comfortable themselves with representatives of the same cohort, thus causing barriers in communication with other generations. The study of Van Dyke, Haynes, and Ferguson-Mitchell (2009) states that people have sense of shared engagement with fellow members of the group and may act unfavorably towards members of other groups.
Based on previously mentioned findings related to individual obstacles during knowledge sharing processes, authors formulated following Proposition 5, Proposition 6 and Proposition 7:
● Proposition 5: There are differences in motives among generations not to share the
knowledge.
● Proposition 6: Generation X and Millennials are more willing to deal with KS
obstacles rather than Baby Boomers.
● Proposition 7: Lack of trust is a crucial obstacle for knowledge sharing processes
1.4 Technologies and Technological obstacles
Despite the fact that knowledge sharing occurs within the social context and with the involvement of people’s interaction, there is a heavy emphasis on the technological side of the communication at the current time due to the modern trend (Hong, Suh & Koo, 2011). However, the study of Yuan, Zhao, Liao and Chi (2013) showed the importance of social aspects for usage of the technologies in an organization. They highlighted that social norms have an important role and influence adoption and usage of ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies).
Modern technology can act as a facilitator to stimulate and support
communication by making the knowledge sharing activities easier and more effective (Riege, 2005). With ICTs it became possible to collect and share important information, knowledge and ideas across different functions and divisions, even being geographically spread (Phang & Foong, 2010). People can also benefit from establishing the networks with strangers to get some knowledge for the expertise that they are interested in by contacting the expert possessing the particular knowledge through the social media channels (Hislop, Bosua & Helms, 2018). Different tools support different levels of information and are suitable for various communication acts. Each tool has its own strengths and weaknesses. Thus, emails and messaging assist with recording messages, however, do not transmit non-verbal signals. The opposite is face to face communication tools which allow to get wealthy information about the other party, following body language, facial expressions, intonations and pauses, but they do not leave recorded information. (Turner, Pernilla, Biehl, Gene & Back, 2010)
Although, findings of the research done by Yuan, Zhao, Liao and Chi (2013) showed that one single type of ICT cannot satisfy workers’ needs, people need different combinations of tools for successful communication and knowledge sharing. A company may have any combination of both long‐standing tools, such as e‐mail, telephones, teleconferencing, intranets, group decision support systems, or databases, and recent interactive social media tools, such as wikis, blogs, online communities, social networking sites, and micro‐blogging (Yuan, Zhao, Liao, & Chi, 2013). United communication, which combines variety of communication tools, plays an important role to facilitate communication at the workplace (Lee, 2010). The most popular tools are telephones, e-mails, instant messaging and video conferencing, as in combination they can provide different forms of communication, such as formal and informal or
Sharma and Singh (2014) were explaining in their study that technology is an important component for the successful knowledge sharing in the engineering industries, however it may be the reason for some difficulties at the same time and cause the
knowledge sharing barriers. Working effectively for some people, technology can be very complicated and fail for others (Riege, 2005). Technological barriers consist of
unwillingness to use particular technologies, lack of training and integration, lack of information about the potential of technology (Sharma & Singh, 2014). Even if the
technology is an exclusively vital solution for the knowledge sharing within the organization, the implementation of the right technology is important (Riege, 2005). Software systems and technological tools should comply with the needs of the workers, as mismatches with their requirements may also cause difficulties and barriers. Thus, the technology by itself can become an obstacle. As it was highlighted before, due to the fact that technology is multi-faceted, it is essential to use various types of technological tools in order to support knowledge sharing.
Age is usually associated with reduced physical capacity and ability for
adaptation, thus it may be thought that older people’s abilities cannot match with the fast growth and development of technologies. Older people often face some physical
problems which may also cause differences in perception of technologies and how to use them. (Yusif, Soar & Hafeez-Baig, 2016) Thus, it may be assumed by the authors that the older generation such as Baby Boomers approach technologies differently than the young one, Millennials. However, it stays comparatively unclear to which extent the Generation X is good with using technological tools in order to facilitate knowledge sharing. Based on the above mentioned findings, authors brought out the following Proposition 8 and Proposition 9:
● Proposition 8: It is more challenging for Baby Boomers to overcome technological
barriers regarding knowledge sharing in the engineering field.
● Proposition 9: By applying various technological tools younger generations may
decrease knowledge sharing obstacles. 1.5 Summary of the key concepts and propositions
Conceptual framework is built in order to answer research questions. The
concepts of knowledge sharing, perception, generational cohorts and knowledge sharing obstacles are covered. The core of the framework is based on the dimensions of
knowledge sharing obstacles such as organizational, individual and technological. The main purpose of the paper is to explore generational perceptions of knowledge sharing
and its barriers. Thus, the combination of multiple concepts provides the base for covering the existing research gap. The built conceptual framework provides expectations and assumptions of what can be found during the further research. The expectations of the authors are clearly displayed in the propositions which are connected to the previously stated research questions. The Figure 1 (the next page) shows how the research questions can be answered with the help of stated propositions.
Figure 1 Connection of research questions and propositions
Source: Compiled by the authors of the thesis How are different generations
perceiving knowledge sharing processes?
Proposition 1: There are differences in perception of knowledge sharing among Baby Boomer, Generation
X and Millennial workers.
Are there differences in perception of knowledge sharing processes between employees and managers?
Proposition 5: There are differences in motives among generations not to share the knowledge.
Are there differences in the perception of obstacles in knowledge sharing between
generations? Proposition 7: Lack of trust is crucial obstacle for knowledge sharing processes between different
generations in engineering field.
Proposition 6: Generation X and Millennials are more willing to deal with KS obstacles rather than Baby
Boomers.
How are different generations overcoming obstacles related to
knowledge sharing?
Proposition 8: It is more challenging for Baby Boomers to overcome technological barriers regarding
knowledge sharing in engineering field.
How are managers supporting the knowledge sharing processes between generations?
Proposition 4: Recognition system is a primary way for Millennials to stimulate them for sharing the
knowledge.
Proposition 9: By applying various technological tools younger generations may decrease knowledge sharing
obstacles.
Proposition 2: Knowledge sharing obstacles can appear without formal guidance for Baby Boomer generation.
Proposition 3: Informal working atmosphere for Generation X and Millennials helps to overcome
2. Methodology 2.1 Research approach and strategy
The aim of the paper is to explore engineers’ perceptions of knowledge sharing and its obstacles in multigenerational construction engineering company.With this particular study authors were trying to get insights and perceptions of workplace
activities, particularly the phenomenon of knowledge sharing and difficulties connected with it, from the perspective of multigenerational representatives. A qualitative research method was chosen for the particular study, considering the deep and complex nature of the studied phenomenon and the requirement of understanding individual perceptions as well as organizational standpoint.
In the beginning of the research process, the researchers identified which the research approach they are going to use. Abductive approach combines effectively both deductive and inductive approaches, moving back and forth around theory and data (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016). The authors were applying abductive approach to the particular research, as they have presented the conceptual framework and built several propositions from it, which are going to be tested further in the paper (deductive approach), and, at the same time, by conducting interviews, the authors were open to new insight and patterns which can emerge from the data and could not be expected from the beginning (inductive approach). By gathering detailed data, the authors expected to understand the individual's perceptions.
For studying knowledge sharing phenomenon, a single case-study strategy was chosen. The case study was conducted in one particular construction engineering company. By doing so, the authors expected to get a deep understanding of the studied phenomenon. As knowledge sharing between generations is a complex phenomenon, it is important for the authors to provide readers with deep insights and rich context
information, which is possible to do with the help of case study strategy. Moreover, with case study strategy the authors got the possibility to explore perceptions, barriers and processes in the real time frame. According to Baxter and Jack (2008), the good thing in comparison to other qualitative approaches, within case study, researchers can gather and collect data from different sources, which facilitates reaching a holistic comprehension of the phenomenon being studied, therefore the authors for the research are going to use primary and secondary data. The research was done at the particular time frame, studying the phenomenon of knowledge sharing within multigenerational workforce, thus the study is cross-sectional.
2.2 The case company description
The case company is one of the leading construction engineering companies in Latvia. It was established in 1993. The company offers expertise and quality in three main directions: construction, renovation as well as the implementation of infrastructure and environmental projects. The company is an employer for highly qualified engineers, Latvian leading renovators, professional infrastructure and environment project
specialists. The company has several quality standard certificates – ISO 9001, ISO
14001, ISO 45001 and BREEAM, which clearly show the quality which the company can provide in its work. The company provides construction, general contractor services in the field of design and project management of apartment buildings, offices, public buildings, commercial/industrial buildings. The company has projects not only in Latvia, but also all around Europe, for example, Lithuania, France, Norway, England, Germany, etc. (Company’s internal documents)
The employees of the company have mastered and applied the latest construction, finishing technologies, methods and materials, as well as are constantly working on the introduction of new, innovative technologies and the use of environmentally friendly materials. The company together employs around 250 people, all of whom are professional specialists in their fields. Employees are regularly involved in various training projects, experience exchange trips, as well as improve their qualifications in various courses related to the performance of their direct job responsibilities and professional career development. (Company’s internal documents)
A project management team is assigned to each object. In the case company there is no division into departments, the workers are assigned to the projects, thus the working teams are built and workers during the project time usually are not rotating between other projects. Depending on the size of the project, the team consists of a project director, a project manager, a responsible construction manager, construction managers and assistants, and a technical secretary. The division of responsibilities takes place among the members of the project management team according to their qualifications and
experience. Depending on the need, water, sewerage network engineers, electrical system engineers, road construction engineers, as well as estimators are involved in the projects during the implementation. (Company’s internal documents)
The mission of the company is - by constantly developing the company and introducing innovations, to professionally provide customers with quality services with high added value, but for the employees - motivating working conditions and an
environment in which they can happily work fully and productively. At the same time - to contribute to the preservation of national and world cultural and historical heritage and the environment, as well as to promote the development of the Latvian construction industry. (Company’s internal documents)
2.3 Research process 2.3.1 Primary data
The data particularly for the purpose of the study was collected from primary sources. In this research, primary data was generated via in-depth semi-structured interviews with employees of the company and several managerial representatives. Secondary data used for the particular research was the company’s code of conduct, policies etc. The case company gave access to the authors to the secondary data. The interviews were guided by the interview guide, designed on the basis of the theories and previous empirical studies, which were described in the previous chapter. As it is stated in the first chapter, there are many factors which can influence knowledge sharing, and therefore the interview questions were grouped based on 4 themes. The themes were formed on the basis of the previously made conceptual framework. Every interview started with a brief introduction, by introducing the author to the respondent and the aim of the study. The first part of the interview included questions which helped to
understand the respondent’s general perception of knowledge sharing and how they describe it by their own words. This part is considered as Theme 1. The second part of the interview included questions related to organisational and institutional level obstacles. In this part, the interviewees were mostly asked about the role of management in
knowledge sharing processes and obstacles regarding the organizational culture and structure. This part is considered as Theme 2. As the knowledge sharing processes are directly connected with the individual, questions related to personal experience and obstacles were asked under Theme 3. As technologies are becoming more important in people’s lives and therefore also knowledge sharing, questions regarding the
technologies and obstacles linked with them were asked under Theme 4. The
propositions and interview questions corresponding to the themes which are presented in the Appendix. The questions slightly varied depending on the position, if the respondent is an employee or a manager. Before collecting the data, the most appropriate sampling technique and sample were selected in order to answer the research questions. For the particular research, the authors decided that the list of possible participants would be
requested from the case company, so it was possible for the authors to further contact with all the respondents personally. The authors of the thesis sent an email to a company representative with a request to provide the list of workers’ contact information, criterias for the research participants were also included in the particular email, such as age and position, in order to fulfil the aim of the study. These workers, therefore, were chosen by a particular representative of a company according to previously fixed criterias by the authors of the thesis. Thus, a purposive non-probability sampling technique was applied (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016). By the presumed sample, 3 interviewees from each generational cohort from the side of employees and 3 representatives from the managerial side to get insights from another perspective, were chosen. The workers from different generational cohorts are represented by the project managers, construction managers and assistants, while the managers in the particular thesis are representatives of higher positions, such as project directors. In Table 2, a description of the sample is shown. Table 2
Description of the sample
Respondent Gender Age Education Years in org.
Millennial 1 Male 29 Bachelor degree in electronics engineering 3 Millennial 2 Male 31 Bachelor degree in construction engineering 2,5
Millennial 3 Male 30 Construction college 3
Generation X 1 Male 40 Bachelor degree in engineering 4 Generation X 2 Male 42 Bachelor degree in construction engineering 8 Generation X 3 Male 45 Specialised high school degree 1,5 Baby boomer 1 Male 64 Masters degree in engineering 16 Baby boomer 2 Male 59 Bachelor degree in engineering 8 Baby boomer 3 Male 62 Bachelor degree in construction engineering 11
Manager 1 Male 33 Three highest degrees 7
Manager 2 Male 39 Masters degree in civil engineering 10 Manager 3 Male 36 Bachelor degree in construction engineering 10
The format of the interviews differed, but all the communication took place by the help of technologies. More detailed information about the research process is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Research process description
Respondent Date Format Language Video Lenght
Millennial 1 23.04.2020 Zoom Latvian Yes 27 minutes
Millennial 2 23.04.2020 Zoom Latvian Yes 34 minutes
Millennial 3 28.04.2020 Zoom Latvian No 19 minutes
Generation X 1 22.04.2020 Zoom Russian Yes 28 minutes Generation X 2 05.05.2020 Phone Latvian No 29 minutes Generation X 3 28.04.2020 Skype Latvian No 39 minutes Baby Boomer 1 21.04.2020 MsTeam Latvian Yes 37 minutes Baby Boomer 2 29.04.2020 Phone Latvian No 29 minutes Baby Boomer 3 06.05.2020 Zoom Latvian Yes 33 minutes
Manager 1 22.04.2020 Zoom Latvian Yes 38 minutes
Manager 2 22.04.2020 Zoom Russian Yes 36 minutes
Manager 3 30.04.2020 Phone Latvian No 29 minutes
Source: Compiled by the authors of the paper
As it is seen, the respondents in the table below are grouped within their generations and three manager respondents are added in the bottom of the table. All the interviews, as it is seen, were conducted in a timeframe of 15 days, the first interview was conducted on the 22nd of April and the last one was conducted on 6th of May. 7 out of 12 interviews were conducted via Zoom software, one interview was conducted via
MsTeams software by the reason that the respondent was doubting the data security of other softwares. One respondent asked to use Skype for the interview, as it was more convenient for him at a time. 3 out of 12 interviews were conducted via phone call, by the reason that respondents were not in the office or near the computer. The used language in 10 out of 12 was Latvian, because it was easier for interviewees to understand specific questions, 2 interviews were conducted in Russian, by the same previously mentioned reason. Video was available during the interview in 7 out of 12 interviews, distinctly it was not available for the interviews which were conducted through phone, but also two
other respondents were more comfortable to give an interview without video. The length of the interviews was diverse, by the reason that some interviewees were more interested to give broad answers and some were laconic and in these cases the authors of the research had to ask several follow-up questions.
Right after every interview, the authors made notes with a first impression and key facts of the interview. After that, each interview was translated from Latvian and Russian language to English. Thus, both authors were able to work further with the collected data, as one of the author’s mother tongue is Russian, and the other one’s it is Latvian. Specifically, after transcribing all the interviews, the authors worked
independently, first in coding the data into different themes, making summary and interpretation, and then jointly.
Thematic analysis was used for the analysis of interviews, as it provides a
structured approach to data coding and analysis. Using this analysis, the authors are able to conveniently identify the themes and make comparisons across the data units. As the phenomenon of knowledge sharing may be complicated considering the
multigenerational context, this technique can be effective in providing the guidance and explanations to the decisions made through the coding process (King & Brooks, 2017). First of all, all the interviews were carefully read, in order to get familiar with the data. Further, the interviews were printed out and divided into three generational groups and one separate group of interviews with managers. After this stage, the analysis of the texts began, reading the second time, the authors were marking the text with different colours and tracing some words or phrases in order to highlight important moments which could be necessary for conducting the analysis, at the same time making the notes with the key points. The particular colour was used for marking one of the themes, to highlight the similarities inside the generational cohort.
By applying abductive approach the authors were open to new insights, emerging from the collected data. Thus, while analyzing the interviews, several sub-themes were identified by the authors under three predetermined and conceptually driven themes. Theme 1 was left without sub-themes, as this theme is based on general perception of knowledge sharing. The distinguished sub-themes helped to facilitate further analysis and to interpret what had been said by the interviewees.
2.3.2 Secondary data
Secondary data in the thesis are presented by the internal documentary of the case company, which was sent via email to one of the authors upon their request and the
corporate website of the company. The documentary of the company is written in the Latvian language, so the translation to the English language was needed, as the
company’s website has the English version. The documentation and website were used in order to present the company description and analyze the company’s activities in the frames of knowledge sharing. Several parts Quality policy and Guidelines for the project management of the internal documentation contain the issues related to knowledge sharing and thus were used in the analysis part of the study. The secondary sources of data provided a research context for the study and helped to interpret the results of the interviews and therefore draw conclusions.
2.4 Quality of the research
By conducting the particular research, the authors take into consideration quality issues. First of all, to ensure credibility of the study, the authors of the thesis provided readers with clearly stated research questions and propositions. The purposeful sampling appropriate for the particular study also helps to ensure the quality of the study.
Dependability and transferability are achieved by using proper analysis techniques, constant audit of the findings, as well as documentation of the research process. The context of the research was provided by the authors in order to make study transferable. In the particular thesis, both primary and secondary sources of data are used, thus the triangulation is achieved. With triangulation, it is possible to achieve credibility. The authors analysed the data independently from each other and then compared the results, in order to ensure the confirmability of the study. Moreover, through the whole research process, the data which was used in the thesis was checked by the both authors. 2.5 Ethical considerations
Before conducting the interviews, it was important to ensure that the ethical issues were considered. Researchers had to get informed consent from the research participants to prove their willingness to participate in the research.
Authors composed the formal letter which was sent to the participants of the research in order to inform them about the purpose of the research, provide some information about the researchers and inform about confidentiality. The letter ensured that all the answers are going to be used only by the authors and for the purpose of the research and that only limited amount of the personal information will be presented in the research paper, such as age of interviewees, their level of education and number of years that they have been working for the company. No names and concrete positions were
shown. Ensuring confidentiality should mean that the participation in this research will not harm anyone.
2.6 Limitations of the research
While conducting the research, it is important to be aware of the possible limitations. So, here authors mention several limitations that possibly may occur during the research process. One of the limitations is connected with the nature of the chosen strategy. Case studies were used for a significantly long period in business and
management research. However, it has been criticised by some of the researchers that the particular strategy is questionable whether it is able to produce dependable and
transferable knowledge. However, by using proper analysis techniques, constant audit of the findings, as well as documentation of the research process authors tried to prevent this limitation. Moreover, even with the consideration that the engineering field is perceived as a masculine working field, one more limitation which can be considered for this study is gender homogeneity. In the particular research only males were taking part. Thus, it could be suggested to conduct further research with diverse genders.
3. Research results and analysis 3.1 Perception
At the very beginning of the analysis, it is essential to take a look and analyse how all the respondents perceive and understand the term “knowledge sharing”, therefore, every respondent was asked to describe how they perceived knowledge sharing. Below, in Table 4, the authors assembled all the answers from the interviewees. This part of analysis can be considered as covering Theme 1 (Perception of knowledge sharing).
Table 4 Knowledge sharing perception by respondents
Millennial 1: “Intellectual property sharing with other persons with or without reward. It is a process in which by help of any communication tool and supported by good working conditions, knowledge of another person is being
developed.”
Millennial 2: “Personal experience and gained knowledge sharing with other workers in order to achieve common objectives and goals in the most efficient way. Keeping a positive attitude and atmosphere during this process is very important.”
Millennial 3: “Communication process during which people are getting knowledge which they can apply in order to get the work done in the best possible way.”
Generation X 1: “The process which can directly affect the success of a company. Workers should cooperate and share their knowledge as much as possible, because if a company is successful also workers will benefit from that.”
Generation X 2: “Personal experience and knowledge transfer to less experienced workers, it has to be a mutual process, because only then there will be some benefit.”
Generation X 3: “Knowledge sharing process is the basis for every engineer's personal growth. Without this process individual growth is problematic. Therefore knowledge sharing processes directly affect company development and competitiveness in the market.”
Baby boomer 1: “Process which is very dependent on personality. Knowledge sharing processes sometimes can be done by overcoming some personal problems or discomfort.”
Baby boomer 2: “Experience and conclusions sharing to co-workers or other communication partners. Knowledge can also be obtained by self-learning, but then there has to be a good motivation.”
Baby boomer 3: “Communication which includes some specific information or knowledge. Both sides have to be motivated to send, to receive and at the end to utilize the obtained knowledge.”
Manager 1: “Through years gathered experience and knowledge sharing to subordinates and colleagues. High importance is to listen to the workers opinion and understand their viewpoint and experience. If it is needed there can be discussion and at the end to come up with productive knowledge sharing.”
Manager 2: “Experience and knowledge transfer to less competent or less knowledgeable colleagues. There has to be a favorable environment in order to have a good knowledge sharing.”
Manager 3: “Very crucial process for company. It is always good to know more and that there is a desire to learn more. The relationships between workers play an important role, as well as the overall atmosphere in the working place.”
