Does generational thinking create differences in knowledge sharing and ICT preferences?

IF 3 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Catalin Bidian, M. Max Evans, Ilja Frissen
{"title":"Does generational thinking create differences in knowledge sharing and ICT preferences?","authors":"Catalin Bidian,&nbsp;M. Max Evans,&nbsp;Ilja Frissen","doi":"10.1002/kpm.1704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organizational strategies around employee retirement are often cast in generational terms (i.e., as knowledge transferred between older and younger generations). Within this context, research suggests generational differences in knowledge sharing preferences and in supporting information and communication technology (ICT) preferences. At the same time, others argue that the concept of generations is a myth, or a stereotype-driven perception. Therefore, the objectives of this study were (1) to examine whether there are generational differences in knowledge sharing and ICT preferences and (2) to examine whether perceptions of younger and older generations' preferences match their actual preferences. Data were collected from 138 survey participants (Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials) and analyzed using ANOVAs, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Additionally, 13 interviews were conducted with Baby Boomers and analyzed using content and narrative analyses. Findings showed no reliable differences between the three generations' preferences for knowledge sharing modalities (i.e., in writing and verbally) and methods (i.e., in person and through various ICTs). The most preferred methods were email, in-person, telephony, and instant messaging. Most interestingly, while all generations had an accurate perception of Millennials' sharing preferences, they all demonstrated a distorted perception of Baby Boomers' preferences. Moreover, the broader the generation gap, the greater the discrepancy in perception. These findings support the postulation that generational differences may be a matter of perception rather than actuality. The most significant implication for research and practice is to retire generational thinking and to propose several alternative organizational strategies in managing knowledge continuity.</p>","PeriodicalId":46428,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge and Process Management","volume":"29 4","pages":"318-332"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge and Process Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Organizational strategies around employee retirement are often cast in generational terms (i.e., as knowledge transferred between older and younger generations). Within this context, research suggests generational differences in knowledge sharing preferences and in supporting information and communication technology (ICT) preferences. At the same time, others argue that the concept of generations is a myth, or a stereotype-driven perception. Therefore, the objectives of this study were (1) to examine whether there are generational differences in knowledge sharing and ICT preferences and (2) to examine whether perceptions of younger and older generations' preferences match their actual preferences. Data were collected from 138 survey participants (Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials) and analyzed using ANOVAs, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Additionally, 13 interviews were conducted with Baby Boomers and analyzed using content and narrative analyses. Findings showed no reliable differences between the three generations' preferences for knowledge sharing modalities (i.e., in writing and verbally) and methods (i.e., in person and through various ICTs). The most preferred methods were email, in-person, telephony, and instant messaging. Most interestingly, while all generations had an accurate perception of Millennials' sharing preferences, they all demonstrated a distorted perception of Baby Boomers' preferences. Moreover, the broader the generation gap, the greater the discrepancy in perception. These findings support the postulation that generational differences may be a matter of perception rather than actuality. The most significant implication for research and practice is to retire generational thinking and to propose several alternative organizational strategies in managing knowledge continuity.

代际思维是否造成了知识共享和信息通信技术偏好的差异?
围绕员工退休的组织战略通常是按代际来制定的(即,知识在老一代和年轻一代之间转移)。在此背景下,研究表明知识共享偏好和支持信息通信技术(ICT)偏好的代际差异。与此同时,其他人认为代际概念是一个神话,或者是一种刻板印象驱动的看法。因此,本研究的目的是:(1)检验知识共享和信息通信技术偏好是否存在代际差异;(2)检验年轻一代和老一代的偏好感知是否符合他们的实际偏好。从138名调查参与者(婴儿潮一代、x一代和千禧一代)中收集数据,并使用方差分析、效应大小和置信区间进行分析。此外,对婴儿潮一代进行了13次访谈,并使用内容和叙事分析进行了分析。调查结果显示,三代人对知识共享方式(即书面和口头)和方法(即面对面和通过各种信息通信技术)的偏好之间没有可靠的差异。最受欢迎的方法是电子邮件、面对面交流、电话和即时消息。最有趣的是,虽然各代人都对千禧一代的共享偏好有准确的认知,但他们对婴儿潮一代的偏好都表现出扭曲的认知。此外,代沟越大,认知上的差异就越大。这些发现支持了代际差异可能是感知问题而不是现实问题的假设。对研究和实践最重要的启示是摒弃代际思维,并提出管理知识连续性的几种替代组织策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
16.20%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Knowledge and Process Management aims to provide essential information to executives responsible for driving performance improvement in their business or for introducing new ideas to business through thought leadership. The journal meets executives" needs for practical information on the lessons learned from other organizations in the areas of: - knowledge management - organizational learning - core competences - process management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信