No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide the systematic analysis of an innovative, intergenerational knowledge transfer strategy in a knowledge‐intensive organization.Design/methodology/approachThe case study method was adopted to study the intergenerational knowledge transfer activities. A triangulated approach was employed in respect of the data collection, which included non‐participatory observation, focus groups, documentary analysis, and semi‐structured interviews. A pattern analysis of data account was undertaken.FindingsTwo models for intergenerational knowledge transfer are presented: the source‐recipient model and the model of mutual exchange. This research also shows how a context conducive to knowledge transfer was developed, and concludes that this context allowed both explicit and tacit knowledge to be transferred.Research limitations/implicationsOften ignored or underestimated this study highlights the need for motivation, inspiration, and empowerment in knowledge transfer. The main limitation of this study is the generalizability of the findings.Practical implicationsThe two models for intergenerational knowledge transfer provide a rubric against which both old and new intergenerational knowledge transfer initiatives can be assessed to determine whether they are capable of encouraging the transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge.Originality/valueThere is little empirical work on the design and implementation of strategies for managing organizational memory. The integrated models and empirical results of this study can serve as guides in that process.

How does one learn and build credibility simultaneously? Such is the challenge faced by an increasing number of professionals, who must quickly get to grips with new assignments while displaying sufficient knowledge to be regarded as experts. If they do not, they will be unable to exert influence over the situation. To address this puzzle, we draw on data from 21 months of participant observation during consulting assignments, and interviews with 79 management consultants. Building on Goffman's notion of face, we identify 'learning-credibility tension'-a discrepancy between a newcomer position that requires professionals to learn, and a role-based image that requires credibility-as a salient and costly issue during organizational entry. Specifically, we find that consultants experience threats to their face during interactions with clients. They deal with these threats by performing individual tactics that help them reduce the anxiety associated with learning-credibility tension, and support their relationship with clients. Our study builds theory in socialization by revealing tactics that allow professionals to keep face while seeking the information they require to adjust to new settings. We also contribute to substantive debates on management consulting by relating insights from the sociology of professions to contemporary knowledge workers.

Do teams with motivation to learn actually engage in the behaviors that produce learning? Though team learning orientation has been found to be positively related to team learning, we know little about how and when it actually fosters team learning. It is obviously not the only factor that may impact learning in teams. Team psychological safety, or the way team members feel about taking interpersonal risks, is another important factor associated with team learning. Team open-mindedness, or the degree of curiosity that teams have for new ideas, is also likely to impact team learning. So far, these factors have been investigated independently of each other. In this article, we draw from theory on team development and goal achievement to develop a model of team learning that includes them. We report the results from a time-lagged, survey-based study designed to test our model. We found that the relationship between team learning orientation and team learning is mediated by team psychological safety. Yet, this is only true when team open-mindedness is low, not when it is high. We thus reveal initial patterns of interaction and discrimination among key factors that are related to team learning in ways that contribute to both theory and practice.