Master of Arts Thesis
Euroculture
University of Göttingen University of Groningen
June 2013
HR Response to Demographic Change in Europe
Submitted by:
Juuso Hermanni Tiihonen Matriculation number 21167145
Obere Mühle 14 37077 Göttingen juuso_tiihonen@yahoo.co.nz
Supervised by:
Dr. Anna Katharina Hildisch Professor Dr. Dr. Fabian J. Froese Dr. Janny de Jong
Place, date
Göttingen, 30.6.2013
1
Abstract
Europe, along with most of the industrialised world, is facing a major demographic change. The
ageing population and especially workforce are setting new challenges for societies and organisations.
Knowledge possesses the greatest ability for sustainable competitive advantage for organisations and
the process of knowledge transfer is a key factor when managing that asset. Ageing workforce
necessitates a change in the HR practices that reside a general preference for younger employees with
strong age related stereotypes. Through the adoption of an age-inclusive organisational climate and
practices supporting intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer the demands of demographic
change can be met, along with an increase in organisational performance.
Keywords: knowledge transfer, HR practices, age stereotypes, intergenerational learning,
2
Abbreviations
HR Human Resources
MNC Multinational corporation
M&A Merger and Acquisition
3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ... 4 2. Knowledge-based view ... 8 2.1 Knowledge ... 9 2.1 Knowledge-based economy ... 12 2.3 Knowledge transfer ... 16 2.4 Conclusion ... 24
3. Intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer... 27
3.1 Generations ... 28
3.2 Age stereotypes ... 29
3.3 Competencies and abilities ... 32
3.4 Intergenerational learning and training ... 33
3.5 Inclusion ... 35
3.6 Theoretical conclusions ... 36
4. Methodology... 39
4.1 Methods and data ... 39
4.2 Analysis ... 42
5. Findings ... 44
5.1 Age stereotypes and beliefs ... 44
5.2 Organisational climate and social interaction ... 47
5.3 Transfer of implicit knowledge ... 49
5.4 HR practices ... 51
6. Discussion and implications ... 57
6.1 Theoretical implications ... 57
6.2 Practical implications ... 59
6.3 Limitations and further research ... 62
7. Conclusion ... 66
Bibliography ... 69
Appendix 1 – Interview questions ... 75
Appendix 2 – The system of categorisation ... 76
Appendix 3 – Interview transcriptions ... 79
4
1. Introduction
Europe, along with most of the industrialised world, is facing a major demographic change. The
ageing population and especially workforce are setting new challenges for societies and organisations.
The modern global economy is dependent on knowledge that resides in people of growing age and
other diversities demanding for effective organisational Human Resource (HR) responses in order to
utilise that knowledge and increase performance (Grant, 1996; Collins & Smith, 2006; Huselid, 1995).
The unavoidable demographic change will have an impact on the organisational culture and
management practices that are in need of effective implications. This study addresses that demand by
examining the processes of intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer.
The demographic change in Europe, due to the ageing of the Baby Boomer generation (1946-1964)
and decreasing mortality and fertility rates, is expected to alter the age structure of the working age
population dramatically. In the European Union (EU) prospects, the share of older workers (54-64) in
the EU will elevate from 13% (2010) to reaching 19% in 2025 (European Commission Ageing Report,
2012: 465). This means that almost every fifth employee will be between the ages of 54 and 64
without taking into account the rising employment participation of people over 64. This study is
conducted in the German context where the numbers are even higher with the share of older
employees reaching 25% by 2025 (ECAR, 2012: 393). However, the German Demographic Strategy
2012 (Bundesregierung, 2012) raises concerns amongst demography experts who claim that it is solely
based on productivity increase, but without a clear guideline how, and therefore the idea of life-long
learning, supporting the development of every employee, should be established as the fundamental
element of the process (Spermann, 2013: 167).
The EU has also realised the dilemma of the ageing workforce and encourages member states for action against the demographic challenges (e.g. ‘2012 - European Year for Active Ageing and
Solidarity between Generations’, European Commission, 2010). However, these propositions and
actions are often merely EU promotion attempting to raise awareness within the EU without a tangible
5
challenges, which originate deeper in the cultural and identity issues where demographics is not the
central topic (Coleman 2006: 86-88). Still, organisations of all kind will face the demographic
transition challenges on the practical level where the proper management of knowledge through
effective practices is crucial.
Indeed, knowledge is currently one of (if not) the most important element of the modern global
economy, and that knowledge possesses the greatest ability for sustainable competitive advantage
(Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Argote et al., 2000a; Teece, 2000). However, the empirical findings of
management literature are still leaving many questions open regarding the central process of sharing
and transferring that knowledge within an organisation and between different age groups. According to Argote and Ingram (2000b: 156) “[…] in the field of business strategy, more effort has gone into
identifying knowledge as the basis of competitive advantage than into explaining how organizations can develop, retain, and transfer that knowledge.“
For the knowledge transfer to be successful certain characteristic of knowledge, context and
participants are decisive. Knowledge can sometimes be explicit and easily codified, but often it is
highly complex and implicit, and this ambiguous character of knowledge is a key factor determining
the transfer process success (Kogut & Zander, 1992: 387-388; Simonin, 1999: 611; Nonaka, 1994:
15-16; Grant, 1996: 111). The research has additionally found several other factors deciding transfer
success. The elements of trust (Hansen 1999; Szulanski et al. 2004; Lane et al., 2001), networks
(Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Tsai, 2001), ties (Hansen, 1999), and motivation (Minbaeva et al. 2003;
Osterloh & Frey, 2000) are important. However, the impact of absorptive capacity (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990: 128-129) and organisational climate with social interaction (Osterloh & Frey, 2000:
546-547; Bock et al., 2005: 98-101) is paramount. These characteristics and elements provide the
theoretical foundation with which the intergenerational perspective is combined with.
In the growingly diverse context of the modern workplace, age related stereotypes and beliefs exist
limiting the full use of the potential residing in individuals and organisations (Van Rooij, 2012:
281-282; Posthuma & Campion, 2009: 160), even if there is evidence that age diversity has a positive
6
younger employees” and older employees are generally offered less development and training
opportunities (Posthuma & Campion, 2009: 171). Different generations and age groups exist in
workplaces with distinct generational identities and individual competencies requiring understanding
in order to facilitate intergenerational learning and knowledge sharing (Joshi et al., 2010: 392-393).
In this study, I seek to combine the requirements of successful knowledge transfer and elements
supporting intergenerational learning, and provide valuable theoretical and practical information that
serve as a reference for organisations facing demographic challenges and as a framework for further
research. A qualitative interview methodology was chosen to best serve the exploratory approach of
this study. Given that knowledge transfer is the basis for sustainable competitive advance and that age
diversity has positive effects on performance, we need a better understanding of the organisational
mechanisms and HR practices strengthening effective knowledge sharing and supporting
intergenerational learning. I argue, that practices supporting organisational climate embracing
age-inclusive approach, especially regarding the development of individual competencies and raising
awareness of implicit knowledge, are a significant step towards that goal.
This study is part of the endeavour attempting to provide theoretical information and implications
contributing to the literature by investigating intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer, and to
generate practical implications for organisation management facing the challenges of growing age
diversity. The research questions guiding this study, that combines issues rising from the broad
empirical evidence regarding knowledge transfer with the changing intergenerational workplace
realities, are:
What are the key elements of a successful intergenerational learning and knowledge sharing in an
organisation?
What are the suitable HR practices and policies that support and facilitate intergenerational learning
and successful knowledge transfer?
The study begins with a thorough examination of the core concept, knowledge transfer, describing the
7
and then investigating the requirements and elements supporting successful knowledge sharing and
transfer process, whether individual or organisational. Next, the study indentifies distinctive themes
and elements influencing intergenerational learning and knowledge sharing. The research literature is
investigated providing relevant approaches and findings essential for the central themes; generations,
age stereotypes, competencies and abilities, learning and training, and inclusion. Together with the
premises of successful knowledge transfer a theoretical framework is formed to serve as the principle
in the empirical analysis. Then, the methodological choices and research data are explained
establishing the qualitative exploratory approach based on expert interviews. The findings are
presented, followed by the discussion offering theoretical and practical implications for managers
responsible for HR practices and policies. The study concludes by connecting the topic into the
8
2. Knowledge-based view
This chapter examines the central concept of this study – knowledge – from the relevant perspectives
for the theoretical framework for the thesis argumentation. The importance of knowledge in the recent
years has been adopted throughout the different strata of societal developments around the world.
Especially in the economic world the importance of knowledge has spurred an intense reshaping of
traditional understandings of business. The unprecedented speed and intensity of changes and the
complexity of relationships within the globalized culture and economy have led academics to rethink
the fundaments of economic theories.
According to Grant (1996: 109) theories of the firm attempt to conceptualize and predict the structure
and behaviour of a business enterprise, but are usually limited to concerns regarding the external
market. Organisational theories, on the other hand, examine the aspects of the firm by analysing the
internal structure and relationships of its individuals, elements and departments of the firm. It sets
aside the idea of the firm as a singular decision maker, a notion that is prevalent in neoclassical
economics.
As a derivative of these theories the resource-based view of the firm attempts to conceive determinants
of strategic choices and decision-making processes in firms. It also seeks to model the ways in which
firms are able to maximise value and optimise deployment of resources and capabilities. The
knowledge-based view is thus an “outgrowth of the resource-based view” bringing knowledge to the
centre of the research building on the academic traditions of organizational learning, strategic
management as well as managerial cognition (Grant, 1996: 109-110). From another perspective, the
knowledge-based view is the essence of the resource-based view where knowledge is a strategic
source of competitive advantage (Conner & Prahalad, 1996: 477).
The chapter starts by first investigating knowledge as a concept in the context of organisational
learning as well as a resource of an individual or an organisation, both with their specific notions. The
significance of the emergence of the knowledge-based economy paradigm is then presented in order to
9
exploration of the complex process of knowledge transfer, bringing forth the scholarly analyses of its
necessities and possibilities without forgetting the challenging obstacles and hindrances that remain as
the central motivator for this study.
2.1 Knowledge
The key concept of this study is knowledge transfer. However, before discussing the theoretical
background of the transfer process and also more specifically the characteristics involving
intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer, the relevant angels on the characteristics of
knowledge and the emergence of knowledge-based economy must be investigated in order to reveal
the complexities involved with definitions of knowledge and discussions surrounding its importance
and qualities. The perhaps most acknowledged feature of knowledge is that it can often be very
explicit, and then in turn sometimes highly tacit and implicit (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994;
Grant, 1996). This two faced property of knowledge will be first explored followed by the scrutiny of
other significant aspects and characteristics of knowledge.
First, as a philosophical starting point, knowledge from an epistemological perspective is understood in this study as a ‘justified true belief’ based on the definitions by Nonaka (1994: 15) and Sveiby
(2001: 344-345) where the ‘truth’ of a ‘belief’ is a dynamic individual ongoing justification process in
which committing to a new meaning in a changed situation knowledge is created. Since the issue of
philosophical investigation of knowledge is not the focus of this study this definition of the
epistemological perspective will suffice.
The foundations for the discussion regarding tacit or implicit knowledge obtained by individuals are
mainly based on the idea first presented by Michael Polanyi (1966: 4) that individuals appear to know
more than they are able to explain. This idea has been later developed in influential scholarly articles
(Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1994; Grant, 1996) which provide the definitions for this study.
Kogut & Zander (1992: 385-387) start by distinguish the differences between know-how and
10
knowledge that can be easily transmitted including facts, axiomatic propositions, and symbols,
implying to an individual knowing of what something means. Nonaka (1994: 15) develops the
distinction further by concluding that “[…] information is a flow of messages, while knowledge is
created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder.” The easy communication of information and ‘knowing what’ reveal to Grant (1996: 111) the
fundamental property of explicit knowledge, in contrast to implicit knowledge that is exposed mainly
through its application.
Indeed, Kogut and Zander (1992: 385-387) refer to know-how as a recipe in which information is
contained as a listing of ingredients but the substantive content of the different steps is imperfect, thus
the need for tacit knowledge to complete the task. In other words, tacit knowledge cannot be
formalized and codified and therefore can only be observed and learned through practical involvement. Furthermore, for Nonaka (1994: 16) it has a strong personal quality and is “deeply
rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context” and importantly the cognitive
element of tacit knowledge resides the individual’s perceptions of the reality and visions of the future – what is and what ought to be. On the other hand, the technical element of implicit knowledge
comprises of concrete know-how, and competencies and skills applied in specific situations and
contexts. These individual notions become important when discussing the elements affecting the
success of the knowledge transfer process.
While most scholars accept the fact that knowledge is created by individuals, whether in interaction
with others or not, there are still different perspectives on the ability of organisations to create and
reside knowledge instead of individuals. Grant (1996: 112-113) is a strong supporter of the individual
perspective in which knowledge creation is an individual activity and argues through Simon’s (1991: 125) classification that “All learning takes place inside individual human heads” stressing the
divergence from Nonaka’s (1991) idea of the knowledge creating organisation. Simon (1991: 125)
claims that “[…] an organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members or (b) by
ingesting new members who have knowledge the organization didn't previously have.” Grant’s main
11
is obscuring the organisational processes conducted by individuals, and offers little help to the
managers who attempt to control these organisational knowledge creation processes that are still the
result of interactions of individuals (Grant, 1996: 113).
Nonaka’s (1994: 16-17) view, indeed, emphasises the centrality of organisation in knowledge creation
through the idea of ‘communities of interaction’ in which the interaction between individuals plays a
critical role amplifying and crystallizing the knowledge created by individuals. This process can
reform the knowledge networks and structures of a company and span across organisational
boundaries including for example suppliers and customers into integrating appropriate knowledge into
the strategic development of the organisation. It can even lead to informal communities of interaction
with competitors, which might develop into a strategic alliance or cooperation. (Nonaka, 1994: 16-17)
Felin and Hesterly (2007: 214) in their more philosophical examination of research on knowledge and
knowledge-based theories come to a conclusion that the value of the collective level in knowledge
creation is rather exaggerated. They challenge the common acceptance in knowledge literature of the
social constructiveness of knowledge and emphasize the individual-level formation of knowledge
through what they call a core self that in its invariance and stability is responsible for knowledge
variance within collective and homogenous thought environments. So, there clearly remains a notion
of dissonance in the tuning of the knowledge literature regarding the fundaments of the process of
knowledge creation which relates to this study that explores the creation and transfer process in an
intergenerational context.
From another perspective, Birkinshaw et al. (2002: 274-275) in their study conducted in R&D
organisations discuss the influences of knowledge assets to the organisation structure. They argue that
the organisational design is influenced by the underlying knowledge characteristics, and that the
concept of system embeddedness is a strong predictor of the organisational structure. System
embeddedness refers to the idea of knowledge being a function of the system or context it is embedded
in, suggesting that knowledge is very responsive of its physical and social context (Birkinshaw et al.,
2002: 278). This characteristic is important when examining the desired qualities of organisations
12
units or firms are undoubtedly looking for the most innovation, productivity, and high quality enabling
organisation structure.
Simonin (1999: 611) lists several variables attached to knowledge (tacitness, experience, specificity,
complexity, cultural distance) that comprise its ambiguity which he declares to be the encompassing
and most critical characteristic regarding knowledge and its transfer. The negative effect of ambiguity
on transfer process is agreed by van Wijk et al. (2008: 843-844) who, however, also assert the positive
side of it providing organisations a needed protection for their knowledge through the difficulty of imitation. For van Wijk et al. (2008: 833) ambiguity refers to the “[…] inherent and irreducible
uncertainty as to precisely what the underlying knowledge components and sources are and how they interact.”
2.1 Knowledge-based economy
There is a broad consensus amongst management scholars that knowledge is currently one of (if not)
the most important element of the modern global economy, and that knowledge possesses the greatest
ability for sustainable competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994; Bresman et al., 1999;
Argote et al., 2000a; Teece, 2000). A variety of different perspectives attempt to examine the
management and other dimensions of knowledge in relation to economics (Foss et al., 2010: 456). As
a key change, the physical assets no longer play the key role for competitiveness and that poses a great
challenge for the managerial setting where knowledge and intellectual property obtain centrality
(Teece, 2000: 36). The knowledge-based economy combined with the demographic transition, rapidly
changing work-life and organisational developments have indeed given the management scholars an
extensive and widespread task to overcome. A broad range of literature has indeed being published
during the last decades in countless journals. However, the empirical findings of the management
research are still leaving many questions open on the knowledge related issues within and between
13
identifying knowledge as the basis of competitive advantage than into explaining how organizations can develop, retain, and transfer that knowledge.“
Some scholars focus on the organisational level of knowledge and its creation (Nonaka, 1994; Foss,
2010), when others examine the acquiring of knowledge through multinational corporations or
international joint ventures (Minbaeva et al., 2003, 2012; Simonin, 1999; Becerra et al., 2008).
Knowledge on an individual level is also a key issue since the organisations are comprised of
individuals that reside most of the knowledge (Grant, 1996; Felin & Hesterly, 2007).
This study is interested in the intra-organisational and intergenerational knowledge sharing and
transfer, and therefore the elements of knowledge will be examined from the perspective within an
organisation. Yet, Individuals with their varied competencies and attributes are playing a key part in
the process of knowledge creation and transfer in varied forms of organisations, and are thus
inherently in the centre of the attention when examining all knowledge related issues. This section
looks into the important literature on the role of the knowledge paradigm in the economic perspective
of organisations.
In his seminal article in 1994, Ikujiro Nonaka, a Japanese business theorist, provided a conceptual
framework for research on learning processes of individuals, groups and organisations. He was one of
the first ones to address the issue of knowledge creation processes as the central function of the
organisation distinguishing the difference to the classical paradigm in which organisations are seen as a passive hierarchical information processor. Nonaka suggests that the ‘input-process-output’ model is
rather insufficient to describe the demands for a contemporary organisation’s dynamic knowledge and
information processing activities in the changing environment (Nonaka, 1994: 14). Indeed, he
demands for a reconceptualization of the organisational knowledge creation processes on all business
fields of innovation, be it technical, product, strategic or organisational innovation. Especially the
process of innovation needs a dynamic and active understanding of the organisation in which
14
knowledge creation and organisational learning are clearly a major part of the paradigmatic shift that
has swept across the industrialised world during the recent decades.
Nonaka’s theoretical framework (1994: 33-35) explains how the knowledge of individuals,
organisations or even societies can grow and develop through a joint interactive spiralling model
process. He emphasises the encompassing applicability of his theoretical principles for any
organisations on all levels of societal activities (economic or social, private or public, manufacturing
or service) regardless of the cultural and geographical location responding to the necessities of the
knowledge-based development in the future world. Nonaka’s perspectives are mostly formed in
Japanese context where innovation and knowledge related progress has been amongst the most
established in the world (Nonaka, 1991: 96).
In Sveiby’s (2001: 345-346) validation of the knowledge-based theory of a firm it is concurred that
there is a need for new thinking in the field of constantly growing knowledge-based activities that take
place in the strategies and everyday functions of knowledge intensive firms. He sees the competencies
of employees as the starting point for the formulation of a company strategy. Since people are the true
agents creating value, whether internally or externally, tangible or intangible, their activities should be
considered as dynamic knowledge relationships in a constant interaction (Sveiby, 2001: 345-346).
Knowledge transfer becomes a key element for the entire structuring of a knowledge intensive firm.
According to Sveiby (2001: 346), the knowledge-based theory recognise the common fundamental
division between the professional/technical staff (R&D, experts, workers, sales and marketing) and the
administrative staff (accounting, HR, IT, management) in knowledge intensive firms, as due to the
lack of knowledge sharing between the two groupings. This creates a hindrance for the dynamic
reforming of the organisation needed for innovative activities. For him the striking nature of
knowledge, is its ability to grow instead of depreciate (like most tangible goods) when used, which
gives organisations the possibility to effectively double the knowledge, and thus increase its
competence value by successfully sharing and transferring knowledge. “In contrast to the value chain
15
Grant (1996: 119) presents another important development caused by the paradigm shift, namely the
distribution of decision-making. In knowledge intensive firms productive knowledge is primary resident in the employees. This facilitates a situation where most of the firm’s resources are owned by
the employees instead of the shareholders who are consequently more constrained in their
decision-making. A dual control is formed where management executes decision rights delegated both
downwards by the shareholders and upwards by the employees, differing clearly from the traditional
Anglo-Saxon capitalist tradition. In addition, the knowledge intense enterprises are imposed to
relocate decision making according to the relevance of the needed knowledge for certain part of the
organisation. Centralisation is effective mainly for decisions when the knowledge can be concentrated
for example into quantifiable information such as treasury or financial risk management. The
advantage for decentralisation is apparent when the decision-making requires implicit and
idiosyncratic knowledge (Grant, 1996: 119). The specific natures of knowledge as a resource set up
certain demands for organisational development and structuring.
For multinational corporations (MNCs), international mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and strategic
alliances the competitive advantage provided by knowledge as a source of sustainable differentiation,
meaning the difficult imitability of products and services, is a major cause for their formations
answering to the fierce chase to acquire valuable knowledge embedded in organisations and
individuals (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Simonin, 1999; Minbaeva et al., 2003; Becerra et al.,
2008). The growing numbers of MNCs and strategic alliances are an essential part of the
knowledge-based paradigm shift in the management literature. Indeed, the knowledge embedded in people is the
motivation for large inter-firm cooperation and global alliances – however, the success of knowledge
transfer is usually far greater in intra-firm networks than inter-firm cooperation efforts raising a
question of the influence of the national and cultural factors. This paradoxical situation is affirmed
especially when the knowledge is implicit or when the alliance partners or MNC departments
experience a competitive setting between their different units (Becerra et al., 2008: 691-692). Still, as
16
Having defined knowledge and established the importance of the topic the focus will turn to the
central process of knowledge transfer. The next section will still continue to discuss the different
characteristics of knowledge in the literature but now in relation to the process of knowledge sharing
and transfer focusing on the supporting peculiarities on the organisational and individual level.
2.3 Knowledge transfer
As established in the previous sections, the pursuit for competitive advantage of an organisation is
mainly based on its efficient and successful knowledge creation and transfer (Grant, 1996; Nonaka,
1994; Argote et al., 2000a; Teece, 2000). Whether the knowledge is explicit which is easy to codify
and defined as information or knowing what, or implicit that is resident in individual know-how and
reveals itself mainly through application, the importance of its appropriate management is central
(Kogut & Zander, 1992: 387-388; Simonin, 1999: 611; Nonaka, 1994: 15-16; Grant, 1996: 111). This
section brings forth the different characteristics of the knowledge transfer process, issues hindering it
and elements and factors supporting its success, whether individual or organisational.
Inertness of the knowledge is the first notion that must be noted when initiating the examination of
knowledge transfer. The idea is discussed by Kogut and Zander (1992: 387-388) who argue that the
ambiguity feature of knowledge, even if sometimes protecting the knowledge, creates one of the main
problems for organisation performance not being able to transfer and imitate its knowledge, which in
turn restrains growth. Thus, inertness is a fundamental property of knowledge limiting its
transferability, often in strong relation to its codifiability and complexity.
Accepting the rockiness of the starting point for successful knowledge transfer this study is committed
to contribute to the empirical research and practical actions attempting to better understand the
individual and organisational demands for successful knowledge transfer. Starting from the literature
regarding inter- and intra-organisational knowledge transfer and then moving towards more individual
17
Easterby-Smith et al. (2008: 679-680) identify four basic factors: power relations; trust and risk;
structures and mechanisms; and social ties, affecting the interaction dynamics between two actors
involved in knowledge transfer. By power relations is meant the power asymmetry that is usually in favour of the donor, however, the recipient’s knowledge acquisition ability and pace affect the
situation by changing the power balance. When the amount of transferrable knowledge is depleting
and thus the donor is no longer as valuable the collaboration may deteriorate. Trust and risk are
variables that are always present and often the donor perceives a risk by possibly leaking unintended
knowledge that reduces its competitiveness. Trust on both sides is essential for facilitating a transfer
process and will be discussed shortly in more detail. The structures of the social relationships are
connected to the context of the needed knowledge transfer and decide the mechanisms and depth of
the any intended collaboration. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008: 679-680)
The fourth factor is social ties which are the fundament for any successful knowledge transfer – a
notion that Hansen (1999: 82-84) has investigated with the conclusion that especially for complex
knowledge strong ties are very essential; however, weak ties can speed up multiunit projects and the
search for useful knowledge when the knowledge is more explicit and less complex. This
identification of context relatedness when it comes to tie strength is an important addition to the
knowledge transfer literature that has emphasised the importance of strong ties, still affirming the high
costs of transferring complex implicit knowledge.
From another perspective, Argote and Ingram (2000b: 152-154) suggest a framework in which
knowledge is embedded into repositories in organisations. There are three of these reservoirs of
knowledge in organisations; members, tools, and tasks. Also various subnetworks are formed
combining these three basic elements. Members are the human workers in the organisation; tools are the technological component; and tasks reflect the organisation’s goals, intentions, and purpose.
Significant amount of implicit knowledge is embedded into the members of the organisation whereas
tools reside specific operational knowledge. Tasks and their interrelationships embed knowledge in
routines, norms, and organisational procedures and practices. By knowledge in subnetworks, Argote
18
members and tasks combine to form the division of labour, or when tasks and tools network have the
information regarding the best tools to complete a certain task.
Knowledge transfer occurs when a unit in an organisation affects another unit by transferring a
knowledge reservoir from one to the other, or when a reservoir is modified at a recipient site. This can
happen explicitly for example by changes in personnel, or implicitly by a unit acquiring certain norm
without being able to articulate it. Yet, knowledge transfer including moving subnetworks or
interactions involving people are unlikely to be successful due to the difficult fit of the embodied
interactions in the new context. (Argote & Ingram, 2000b: 153-155)
Thus, Argote and Ingram (2000b: 164) conclude by stating the importance of the dual role of people in
knowledge transfer. On the one hand, people make the subnetwork knowledge transfers very context
sensitive and vulnerable, but on the other hand people are able to adapt their knowledge of tools and
tasks from one context to another, facilitating successful knowledge transfer.
The most important perspective of their framework for this study is when Argote and Ingram (2000b:
165) point out that the changes in the repositories must be considered. The repositories change during
knowledge transfer and influences outcomes, and through their status, fundamentally affect the
transfer process. In other words, the new knowledge embedded into organisational culture, practices
and individuals change the possibilities and potential of future knowledge transfer, and the
organisation’s or individual’s past knowledge, competencies, and readiness to acquire new knowledge
play a key role in the transfer process. This notion of readiness and capacity to acquire knowledge
brings us to the next major aspect – absorptive capacity.
Cohen and Levinthal (1990: 128-129) state that the ability to exploit external knowledge is the starting
point for any innovative competencies or skills. These capabilities are a function of the prior related
knowledge that has been accumulated, and can include from elementary language skills to most
specific and complex knowledge. Absorptive capacity constitutes from these abilities to recognise,
assimilate and apply new information and knowledge. The absorptive capacity of an organisation is
19
capabilities will directly enhance the organisations capabilities. However, an organisation’s acquisition
of knowledge does not directly boost its absorptive capacity but the ability to exploit knowledge is
based on the transfer and sharing of knowledge within and between organisational units and areas of
expertise. The surfaces between external sources and the organisation, as well as between internal
units within the organisation are crucial for its absorptive capacity. Effective communication is thus a
premise for the effective sharing of knowledge and creation of relevant networks strengthening the
capabilities for innovative performance and absorptive capacity. (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 131-134)
Developing from Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) seminal article, Minbaeva et al. (2003), and Zahra and
George (2002) agree on a more dynamic idea of absorptive capacity as a change agent in organisations focused on the organisation’s capacity to effectively utilise and exploit previously acquired
knowledge. Minbaeva et al. (2003: 587-589, 597) identify the ability and motivation of employees as
the key aspect strengthening the organisations absorptive capacity and knowledge transfer, and the
possibilities of HRM practises enhancing those two individual traits through training, appraisal,
compensation, and communication efforts. Whereas Zahra and George (2002: 185-186) focus on the
reconceptualization of the concept through research analysis, and provide a new model recognising the
influences of absorptive capacity for the nature and sustainability of a firm’s competitive advantage.
Absorptive capacity in inter-organisational relations is viewed as relative – a dyad-level construct
(Lane et al. 2001; Lane & Lubatkin 1998; Levin & Cross 2004), in which absorptive capacity should
be approached from a learning dyad model (student-teacher). The model argues that the relative compatibility of knowledge characteristics (teacher’s specific knowledge, similarity of structures and
practices, student’s familiarity of teacher’s problems) of the two units decide the success of the
valuing, assimilation and application of the new transferred knowledge (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998: 462).
Lane et al. (2001: 1141) develops the relative absorptive capability concept by introducing trust as a
key factor for the successful knowledge transfer. Trust is a contested but an often applied variable that
needs to be investigated to better understand absorptive capacity elements and mechanisms.
This study focuses on the challenges of intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer. The
20
facilitated. The importance of trust is supported through the evidence that it increases the amount of
information that can be transferred, decreases the cost of transfer, and increase cooperation between
the donor and recipient (Szulanski et al., 2004: 600-601). However, Szulanski et al. (2004: 608-610)
argue that due to the causal ambiguity of knowledge within organisational practises the characteristics
of knowledge control the effect of trust in organisational learning. In other words, perceived
trustworthiness may hinder the accurate knowledge transfer when the knowledge is more ambiguous
and implicit – the “dark side” of trust as they name it. An interesting exception to the literature related
to trust which should also be investigated in an age diverse context providing information about the
impact and peculiarities of trust in an intergenerational transfer process.
As Easterby-Smith (2008) above already defined, risk and trust belong to the basic elements
facilitating and affecting knowledge transfer. Becerra et al. (2008: 691-693) develop on this idea and
approach it from the perspective of the two different forms of knowledge. Their research find evidence
that trustworthiness is closely related to the successful transfer of implicit knowledge, whereas
transferring explicit knowledge is more related to greater willingness to accept risk. The study was
conducted in the context of alliance partners but pays also great relevance to intra-organisational
transfer process since it is within networks of people and units where the trusting relationships are
built.
Indeed, Levin and Cross (2004: 1486-1487) investigate the same issue on the inter-personal level in
organisations discovering results that concur with the literature discussed above. They agree with Hansen’s (1999) findings that weak ties are beneficial for knowledge transfer especially when the
knowledge is nonredundant and explicit. When they add the variable of trust the results declare that
competence-based trust is especially needed for the transfer of tacit knowledge, but benevolence-based
trust is always beneficial for the transfer process. However, another important aspect is the condition
where high trust is accompanied with a strong tie. Even though it enhances knowledge transfer it has
the tendency to provide unnecessary and redundant information, thus leading Levin and Cross (2004:
1486-1487) to their valuable discovery of the structural importance of “trusted weak ties”. On the
21
and sharing of knowledge through its qualities to reduce hierarchy and promote sharing of individual
tacit knowledge and mutual trust. So, it can be concluded that ties are an important element to the
formation and structure of inter-personal and inter-unit networks, an issue that was already touched upon by Argote and Ingram’s (2000) in their knowledge reservoir model. Relevant perspectives of
networks are now examined.
Networks and their relation to knowledge transfer have been broadly investigated (Inkpen & Tsang,
2005; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Tsai, 2001; Oh et al., 2004) uniformly reaching the conclusion of
the centrality of networks for the process of knowledge transfer. Inkpen and Tsang (2005) approach
the issue by defining the common network types (intra-corporate network, strategic alliance, and
industrial district) and through the concept of social capital propose conditions facilitating knowledge
transfer in these different networks. Their most relevant finding is that each network has distinct social
capital dimensions and dynamics regarding individual or organisational social capital. The social
capital influences knowledge transfer in relation to the character of the network, deciding the centrality
of the either individual or organisational level social capital (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005: 159-160).
Tsai (2001: 996) explores the importance of the centrality of a network in an organisation affecting its
ability to learn and create new knowledge. This ability requires the transfer of knowledge which takes
place in networks created through interactions between different units in a social context. He stresses
the importance of the two concepts, network position and absorptive capacity determining the success and effectiveness of the interunit learning and knowledge transfer. Tsai’s (2001: 1002-1003) article
highlights the importance of intra-organisational, firm-specific knowledge sharing supporting
organisational learning, innovation and performance. In his conclusion he comes close to the ideas of
Nonaka (1994) when speculating the possible effects that intra-organisational learning and knowledge
creation has on the development and evolvement of the whole organisation.
Reagans and McEvily (2003: 240-241) want to develop Tsai’s (2001) performance-based research approach by examining the impact of the network’s structure on the knowledge transfer success. They
consider social cohesion and network range as the two key properties of the network structure
22
knowledge transfer and preferably the network structure should be a combination of these two
elements. However, in addition to the already established importance of strong ties regarding transfer
of complex information, Reagans and McEvily (2003: 261-263) emphasise the paramount effect of the
strong individual personal tie between two people when the knowledge is implicit. Thus, the broadness
and diversity of the range of a network facilitates beneficial relationships and ties suitable for
successful knowledge transfer in a particular situation or context.
When all the above discussed factors and structurally supportive measures are taken into account,
there is still a one crucial element effecting knowledge transfer on individual level – motivation. After
the review of motivation as a component of the knowledge transfer process, this chapter will end with
a conclusion of the literature combining all the relevant theoretical aspects of knowledge transfer for
this study.
For Minbaeva et al. (2003: 589-590) individual motivation and ability are key parts of absorptive
capacity and motivated individuals want to contribute to organisational effectiveness. Where ability is
a potential factor for absorptive capacity, motivation is realised through absorptive capacity in the
knowledge transfer process. If motivation of the employee is low the abilities are not optimally
utilized and thus the absorptive capacity remains also low. Both, motivation and ability are elements
that can be influenced by HRM practices, and are discussed in the research implications.
Since high motivation is essential for individuals engaged in successful knowledge sharing managing
the level of motivation becomes very important. Szulanski et al. (2004: 604-605) emphasised earlier in
their research the centrality of trust in knowledge transfer, however they see the lack of benevolence
between the donor and recipient affecting their motivation and therefore use motivation as a control
variable. Osterloh and Frey (2000: 539-540) investigate the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations when transferring implicit and explicit knowledge. Intrinsic motivation is self-sustained
and based on individual need satisfaction with self-defined goals and expectations of fulfilment in the
work content. When intrinsic motivation is in line with organisational goals and employee is
23
Also, Bock et al. (2005: 98-101) examine factors increasing or lessening employees’ tendencies to
engage in knowledge sharing. Both studies agree on the negative effect of commonly used extrinsic,
pay-for-performance motivators on knowledge sharing activities. Intrinsic motivation is superior to
extrinsic compensation mechanisms in creating and transferring, especially tacit knowledge. For an
organisation the managing of these motivating factors is crucial for effective knowledge sharing
(Osterloh & Frey, 2000: 538). In addition, the two articles both point out the importance of suitable
organisational climate that is fair enhancing affiliation, cooperation and personal contacts, supported
by targeted social interactions and robust referent communities, which all increase motivation and
participation in knowledge sharing (Osterloh & Frey, 2000: 546-547; Bock et al., 2005: 98-101). The
factors of organisational climate and social interactions run throughout this study as core elements.
Szulanski’s (1996: 36) often cited article about the stickiness of knowledge dismisses motivation as
the common accused factor for poor knowledge transfer. His research results argue that the lack of
absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity and an arduous relationship create the characteristic of stickiness
hindering the transfer of knowledge within organisations. By absorptive capacity he refers to the
knowledge exploitation abilities of the recipient prior to transfer, causal ambiguity reflects the complexity of the recipient’s knowledge base, and the quality of the relationship decides the
availability of knowledge for the recipient.
Even if Szulanski (1996: 36-37) undermines the importance of motivation, he acknowledges the lack
of understanding in organisational management to foster inter-unit relationships and understanding,
and communication of practices instead of plain individual competency and incentive development
tradition. Moreover, the case of motivation is a good example of a contested variable. All the concepts (absorptive capacity, ambiguity, social relationship, and motivation) employed in Szulanski’s (1996)
research are all elements that have been discussed from multiple perspectives in this section. It clearly
reveals the overlapping, sometimes plain confusing, use of different concepts in management literature
in attempt to form a more comprehensive understanding of the elements, factors and characteristics
24
of these multiple theoretical approaches most suitable for the focus of this study a compact conclusion
is now provided.
2.4 Conclusion
This chapter started by depicting the current world situation where the importance of knowledge-based
approach to societal issues has become central and the paradigmatic shift of the last decades in the
economic and management theories is apparent. This study focuses on the knowledge sharing and
transfer processes within organisations and between individuals from an intergenerational perspective,
having the evident demographic change as the motivation. The knowledge-based economy recognises
knowledge having the ability of being the most potential factor for sustainable competitive advantage
(Grant 1996; Conner 1996; Argote & Ingram 2000b), and effective knowledge transfer as the booster
of performance (Minbaeva et al., 2003; Bresman et al., 1999; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).
Knowledge can be approached from individual, organisational or structural perspective, with creation,
acquisition or transfer as the process in theoretical focus. This study is interested in the transfer and
sharing processes that take place within organisations and between individuals, but have also structural
implications. Since knowledge and its transfer is a complex issue a variety of elements and characteristics must be taken into account. Knowledge in this study is defined as a ‘justified true
belief’ (Nonaka, 1994: 15; Sveiby, 2001: 344-345), a dynamic individual ongoing justification process
in which committing to new meaning in a changed situation knowledge is created. The complex nature
of knowledge having a two faced property of being implicit, often referred to as know-how, or more
codifiable and explicit, knowing what.(Nonaka 1994; Kogut & Zander, 1992; van Wijk et al., 2000;
Simonin, 1999).
Concerning knowledge transfer, certain characteristic of knowledge receive central attention in the
literature. Ambiguity, the complexity and specificity of knowledge is a key factor for the inertness of
knowledge (Kogut & Zander, 1992). The transferability of knowledge is often in strong relation to its
25
Also the trust between donor and recipient is central, especially for the transfer of implicit knowledge
(Hansen 1999; Szulanski et al. 2004; Lane et al., 2001), yet trust as a knowledge research variable
with its unsettled character needs further research. The importance of networks, informal or formal, is
made clear in the literature stressing its ability to affect organisational learning and knowledge
creation and sharing (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Tsai, 2001). Weak ties with strong trust are especially
accommodating for most knowledge transfer, however for sharing implicit knowledge strong ties
appear to be more useful, even though they tend to produce redundant information and are more costly
(Hansen 1999; Levin & Cross, 2004).
Knowledge is embedded in social relationships within multiple networks varied in social cohesion and
range that through their knowledge creation have an effect for the development and evolvement of the
whole organisation (Tsai, 2001: 1002-1003). Also, the importance of suitable organisational climate
that is fair, enhancing affiliation, cooperation, and personal contacts, supported by targeted social
interactions and robust referent communities, all increase motivation and participation in knowledge
sharing activities. (Osterloh & Frey, 2000: 546-547; Bock et al., 2005: 98-101)
A crucial concept for knowledge transfer is the absorptive capacity. Its elements have been
investigated from multiple perspectives and the focus is dependent if the approach is organisational
(Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Zahra & George, 2002), focused on MNCs (Minbaeva et al. 2003; Lane et
al. 2001), or examining the dyad level construct (Lane & Lubatkin 1998; Levin & Cross 2004). In this
study absorptive capacity means the dynamic ability of the recipient to exploit external knowledge
through recognition, assimilation, and application, with effective communication and high motivation
as premises (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 128-129). Indeed, motivation is also an important factor
effecting knowledge sharing but also a contested variable being defined and measured in diverse ways
(Minbaeva et al. 2003; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Szulanski et al. 2004), making the concept rather
ambiguous for research. Still, an agreement on the highly positive effect of intrinsic and the negative
effect of extrinsic motivations for successful knowledge sharing is established (Osterloh & Frey, 2000:
26
So, for this study the literature review provides some clear requirements for a successful process of
knowledge transfer and sharing: Firstly, the absorptive capacity of the recipient(s) is crucial for
successful knowledge transfer. Secondly, the nature of the transferred knowledge (implicitness,
codifiability) needs to be taken into account when planning knowledge transfer. Thirdly,
organisational climate and social interaction with personal relationships are irreplaceable facilitators
of any successful knowledge sharing activity. These requirements will be applied to the context of
27
3. Intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer
This study focuses on the knowledge sharing and transfer processes within organisations and between
individuals from an intergenerational perspective, having the evident demographic change as the
motivation. Diversity is increasing in organisations and it is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon
not easily connected with organisational performance because of the multiple types of diversity all
having different influences for the group dynamics and outcomes (Webber & Donahue, 2001:
158-159). However, there is evidence that age is a diversity attribute that is proven to reduce conflicts
(Pelled et al., 1999: 21,24) and decrease competitiveness, both having a positive effect on
organisational performance (Jehn et al., 1999: 757-758).
The knowledge creation, transfer and sharing processes examined in the previous chapter take place
within organisations and between individuals of different age. The awareness among HR managers of
the importance of intergenerational learning and training has raised, yet the stereotypical perceptions
of older and younger workers and their abilities regarding learning, training and motivation are
changing very sluggishly (Van Rooij, 2012: 281-282). Low value diversity is proven to enhance group
performance (Jehn et al., 1999: 757-758) but generational differences in work values are still on
assumption bases highlighting the need for diversity research with an age-inclusive approach (Twenge
et al., 2010: 1118-1119).
This chapter examines distinctive themes and elements significant for intergenerational learning and
knowledge transfer processes. The management literature is investigated providing relevant
approaches and findings essential for the central themes; generations, age stereotypes, competencies
and abilities, learning and training, and inclusion. Age related issues regarding work-life are broadly
acknowledge but valuable empirical study, departing from the traditional anecdotes, on the real
characteristics of intergenerational activities including knowledge transfer are poorly covered.
Together with the theoretical exploration of knowledge sharing and transfer in the previous chapter,
this chapter form the theoretical framework for the argumentation of this study. First, the concept of
generations is shortly discussed followed by the review of age stereotypes. Then, the competencies
28
aspects of intergenerational employees are examined. Finally, the practice of inclusion is discussed in
the context of intergenerational organisation and knowledge sharing followed by a conclusion tying
the theoretical framework together providing the argumentation assumptions for the research analysis.
3.1 Generations
Generation is a concept with the idea to include people that were born during a certain time period
sharing cultural, social and historical life events in critical development periods forming a
distinguished age group – generation (Schaie, 1965: 101-103). The most commonly known western classifications of generations in today’s workforce are; the Silent Generation (1925-1945), the Baby
Boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1981), Generation Y (1982-1999; also referred to as
Generation Me (Twenge, 2006), or Millenials) (Twenge et al., 2010: 1120-1124). Having the
demographic change as the motivation for this study, the work-life developments and differences
between the ageing Baby Boomer generation and the Generation X and Y will be shortly canvassed.
The perceptions of generational differences are an important factor for the age related stereotyping that
influences organisational management. Different generations exist in workplaces with distinct
generational identities requiring understanding in order to facilitate intergenerational learning and
knowledge sharing (Joshi et al., 2010: 392-393).
Twenge et al. (2010) examine work values in their research with longitudinal data gathered in the 70s,
90s and 00s enabling the isolation of the age and generational differences. Cross-sectional studies have
the problem of implicating rather the career stage differences than generational ones (Twenge et al.,
2010: 1118-1119). The major change observed in the research analysis was the increase of value
placed on leisure by the Generations X and Y which is seen to reflect the desire for a better work-life
balance. Extrinsic rewards are also valued within the X and Y Generations compared to the Baby
Boomers, which in the case of Generation Y with the high valuing of leisure seen to resemble a
disconnection between expectations and reality (Twenge et al., 2010: 1133-1135). Smola and Sutton
(2002: 378) agree in their study, mainly comparing Generation X and Baby Boomers, on the decline of
29
find that the intrinsic value of work declines over generations questioning the perception of the
importance of meaning in work-life for younger generations. This notion supports the idea that
younger generations give work less meaning as central element of life than the Baby Boomers
(Twenge et al., 2010: 1133-1135; Smola & Sutton, 2002: 378-379).
So, there are certain differences between generations when it comes to work values, younger are
seemed to be more self-centred and less loyal to the company, where as older see the intrinsic value of
work as a central element in life. However, Smola and Sutton (2002: 379) want to point out that work
values are more related to the generation than age and maturation, which is an important issue to keep in mind when analysing ‘older’ and ‘younger’ in a certain context such as the current demographic
change. These work value findings prove the existence of some basic generational differences relevant
when examining intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer processes. Yet, a far greater role
plays the dominating stereotypical perceptions and beliefs of older and younger employees influencing
workplace practices and policies. These stereotypes are now under scrutiny.
3.2 Age stereotypes
Age stereotypes in the workplace are often inaccurate and negative assumptions, beliefs and
expectations about workers based on their age. They can be subtle and unconscious but still very
effective through managerial discrimination concerning recruiting, lay-offs or training selections. Most
age stereotypes in the workplace are negative features attributed to older workers (Posthuma &
Campion, 2009: 160). In their meta-analysis Posthuma and Campion (2009) investigate and list
important workplace related age stereotypes in the management literature. These stereotypes are a
fundamental factor influencing the possibilities to establish and facilitate a successful intergenerational
learning and knowledge transfer process.
Performance stereotype characterises older workers as less productive and motivated, and having a
lower mental or physical ability, more prone to stress and less competent. However, there is little
30
age and tenure. Individual competencies and health affect the performance more than age and
therefore differences within age groups are greater than between age groups. (Posthuma & Campion,
2009: 165-167)
Resistance to Change stereotype encompasses the idea of older workers being “less adaptable, less
flexible, more resistant to change, and have less energy than younger employees and, therefore, will provide lower returns on investments such as training.” Unfortunately, the validity of this stereotype
has not been sufficiently researched and remains therefore as an open question for the future research.
(Posthuma & Campion, 2009: 168)
Lower ability to Learn stereotype refers to the perceptions of younger workers having more future
development potential and learning abilities, even intelligence, than older workers resulting in less
training opportunities. Older workers are believed to be less willing to keep up with technological
development and new concepts. These beliefs often result to less willingness to allocate funds into
training of older workers. This stereotype has mixed research evidence supporting its validity in
certain setting and in others not (Posthuma & Campion, 2009: 168-169). This central issue is further
discussed in the findings with the data analysis of this study.
Shorter Tenure stereotype is another negative perception of older workers claiming that they provide
lower return of investments such as training, due to their shorter tenure on the jobs as younger that are
expected to stay longer in the job as older will retire. However, older workers are less likely to leave
the company than younger, and the employee investments like trainings tend to be with short term
payback, making the stereotype is in most cases invalid. (Posthuma & Campion, 2009: 169)
More Costly stereotype is a common belief that older workers are more costly “because they are paid
higher wages, use more benefits, and are generally closer to retirement.” This perception of lower
economic worth of older workers is contested since there are multiple reasons why an older worker
could have a higher wage and benefits. Older workers usually hold a senior position; have a lower rate
of absenteeism, better quality of work, and diligence. In addition, salaries also tend to grow till the age
31
The final common stereotype is a positive stereotype of older workers. More Dependable stereotype provides a broad list of admirable adjectives related to older workers. They are perceived as “more
stable, dependable, honest, trustworthy, loyal, and committed to the job”. Additionally, older workers
have a lower rate of absenteeism and rapid turnover. This stereotype also needs further research to be
fully validated and examined with other positive dimensions of age related performance. (Posthuma &
Campion, 2009: 170)
The listed common stereotypes also influence decisions related to employment. According to
Posthuma and Campion (2009: 171) research shows that recruiting, promotion, evaluation and
appraisal are affected by age bias, and their meta-analysis shows that there is a “general preference of younger employees.” This notion of preference is strongly supported by Büsch et al. (2009: 633-634)
in their research findings, which indicate that in the national context of this study, Germany, the
younger employees are especially widely favoured. This prevalence of stereotypes is clearly hindering
the facilitation and support of intergenerational learning and knowledge transfer.
Posthuma and Campion (2009: 171-173) agree in three ways in which age stereotypes in workplace
are moderated. First, older employees often hold the same stereotypes as the younger employing them
in decision making, a variable that diminishes when older identify themselves with other
‘stereotypical’ older workers. Another moderating factor is the availability of job-related information
which individualises employees through consideration of specific information, turning the focus from
particular group membership such as age to more relevant properties and abilities of the employee. The third rather ambiguous factor is the perception that some jobs have a “correct age”, activating the
influence of age stereotypes in situations when a position is perceived as appropriate for a young or for
an older employee. At the end of their meta-analysis Posthuma and Campion (2009: 173) list the
industries where age stereotypes are particularly strong; finance, insurance, retailing, and information
technology. Consequently, reducing stereotypes is a central issue in the practical implications
32
3.3 Competencies and abilities
In addition to anecdotes and stereotypes the actual and perceived competencies, skills, and abilities of
the employees of different ages influence practices and facilitation of intergenerational learning and
knowledge transfer in organisations (van Rooij, 2012: 282). The management research in this field is
lacking making some of the theoretical assumptions in this study brave but essential. Indeed, Tikkanen
(2011: 1217) challenges the management of companies as well as the scholars of academia to raise
more attention to the potential capitalization of talent and experience residing in older workers rather
than perceiving ageing workforce as a problem that needs to be managed. She acknowledges the slow
multidisciplinary emergence of research related to demographic change and its consequences, but
demands for more exploration and explanation.
Supporting the engagement and motivation of older employees in intergenerational learning and
knowledge transfer, Van Rooij (2012: 282) discusses the age stereotypes affecting the self-efficacy
beliefs of older workers regarding their learning and training motivation, even though there are no
psychological evidence indicating the decline of learning abilities as people age, on the contrary,
life-long learning activities are essential for individual development. This notion of dormant potential in
older employees underlines the valuable relation between age diversity and intergenerational learning
in the workplace.
Competencies of older and younger employees are perceived to vary especially regarding their soft
and hard qualities. Younger workers are seen to obtain hard qualities such as flexibility, physical and
mental capacity, and willingness to learn new technologies, whereas older workers are more
committed to the organisation, reliable, and have better social skills (Van Dalen et al., 2010: 325-326).
Social skills and trust are amongst the most important elements supporting absorptive capacity and
thus a major factor facilitating knowledge transfer (Levin & Cross, 2004; Szulanski et al., 2004). The
perceptions of well established soft skills of older employees work thus in favour of facilitating
successful intergenerational learning and knowledge sharing.
Moreover, Billett et al. (2011: 1255-1256) state referring to a survey conducted in the US that older
