Dissertation_ VD2015
-
Upload
dr-vasyl-dmytriv -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
1
Transcript of Dissertation_ VD2015
PROCESS OF KNOWLEDGE PRESERVATION AND TRANSFER: LEADERSHIP
PRACTICES IN THE AEROSPACE INDUSTRY IN WASHINGTON STATE
by
Vasyl Dmytriv
Copyright 2015
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership
University of Phoenix
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States CodeMicroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ProQuest 3738526
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
ProQuest Number: 3738526
iii
ABSTRACT
This qualitative collective case study involved an examination of leadership challenges in
the aerospace manufacturing industry in the U.S. state of Washington. This study
focused on how leaders can (a) resolve the knowledge gap and develop a competitive
advantage by building a culture of knowledge sharing and (b) transform manufacturing
workers into technical, highly skilled production professionals by driving
multigenerational legacy knowledge in talented individuals. The concept of a knowledge
economy helped identify and contextualize these practices. The study was designed to
provide new knowledge about organizational leadership for leaders and managers
responsible for: (a) strategies that cultivate a knowledge-sharing culture, to close
knowledge gaps between workforce generations; (b) knowledge preservation strategies;
and (c) initiating a further round of advancement in the aerospace industry. The outcome
of the central research data indicated a significant effect of a knowledge-sharing culture
on the employees' behavior regarding sharing their knowledge without considering the
personal risk of becoming less valuable and threatening their job security. The review of
the literature, the data analysis, and the conclusions all revealed that a multigenerational
workforce needs leadership that leads well, for example by creating events at which the
seeds of innovation are planted and nurturing a climate for a healthy environment where
workers to share their knowledge without concerns for job security.
iv
DEDICATION
The journey was long, which helped me reflect on the newest learned knowledge
and then to select the building blocks in the structure of personal wisdom. I dedicate this
dissertation to my Lord Jesus Christ, who stands with me during my lifetime journey. I
believe that God supported me through it all. Without my strong faith, belief, and
promises to God that I would finish this task, I would not have been able to scale this
five-year hurdle, which I thought I would complete in three, along with any other
priorities in life.
I want to thank my family, who have supported and encouraged me throughout
this endeavor. I thank you for your sacrifices and understanding. Two months after I
started this journey in 2009, I lost my brother Vlad in a tragic accident. My happiness at
being a doctoral student turned into a time of sadness. It turned my life upside down. For
the next 3 years, I struggled to balance my loss with pressures at my workplace, the
ministry, and at home. It created a void that constantly reminds me that life is a gift from
God, and we must be thankful daily for seeing the beauty of His creation. I thank to my
younger brother, Tony, for his belief in me.
I am dedicated to my father and mother, Andriy and Kateryna, for the fruit of love
that made me arrive on this planet. Thank you for years of sacrifice, love, and prayers
without which I could not have completed this journey. Thanks to spouse Natalya,
daughter Helen, sons William, and Michael – three years of age – those are the followers
who daily polished at me the skills of the servant leadership to serve them without asking
for a reward.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I was born into a Christian family in Ukraine and at the age of 12, where I got the
message that Christians have no future in a society of the current regime – they are
obsolete. I turned my hope to God, by asking Him in leadership through the life. I made
a commitment to Him that I will find the way of freedom; I will achieve academic
success to speak loudly about His work in a life of the followers. I got my bachelors
degree in Odessa in the Soviet Union and then a master’s degree in Seattle in the United
States, and finally in 2009 I began my doctoral journey. I experienced a remarkable
journey with many sacrifices, challenges, discoveries, and rewards.
I would like to thank my dissertation chair and committee members Dr. Vadim
Jigoulov, Dr. Gail Gessert, and Dr. Martin Gunnell. Dr. Jigoulov, I am extremely
grateful for your support and truly appreciate the timely manner in which you examined
my research and provided critiques, feedback, and practical suggestions. It was an honor
to know and work with you. I acknowledge my committee members for their valuable
assistance and prompt feedback.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the individuals who volunteered to
participate in this study, because without their willingness to share their lived experience,
this study would not have been possible. To all of you, I say, "Thanks!"
With God, all things are possible; just listen to His voice.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page
List of Tables.........................................................................................................xiii
List of Figures........................................................................................................xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction.............................................................................................1
Background of the Problem..........................................................................2
A global knowledge-based economy................................................3
Knowledge economy........................................................................5
The U.S. manufacturing industry.....................................................5
Organizational culture......................................................................6
Developing a knowledge-sharing culture.........................................7
An aging workforce..........................................................................7
Operational knowledge.........................................................9
Statement of the Problem............................................................................10
Purpose of the Study...................................................................................12
Significance of the Study............................................................................14
Significance of the Study to Leadership.....................................................14
Nature of the Study.....................................................................................16
Research Questions.....................................................................................19
Theoretical Framework...............................................................................19
Definitions of Terms...................................................................................23
Assumptions................................................................................................24
Scope...........................................................................................................25
vii
Limitations..................................................................................................26
Delimitations...............................................................................................26
Summary.....................................................................................................27
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature.......................................................................30
Smart Manufacturing..................................................................................31
Novelty............................................................................................31
Motivating a workforce..................................................................32
A Germinal Overview of Motivational Forces in Organization.................32
A Current Overview of Motivational Forces in Organization....................33
Theoretical paradigm shift..............................................................33
Choice theory..................................................................................34
Complexity theory..........................................................................35
Fife-Factor theory...........................................................................36
Chaos theory...................................................................................37
Motivated employee.......................................................................38
Organizational Culture................................................................................39
Corporate culture.............................................................................41
The cultural integration process......................................................46
Organizational climate....................................................................48
Knowledge-sharing culture.............................................................48
Open innovation..............................................................................49
Learning culture..............................................................................50
Flexible culture...............................................................................50
viii
The U.S. Manufacturing in a Knowledge-Based Economy........................51
Aging aerospace workforce............................................................52
Baby Boomer brain drain................................................................53
Multigenerational workforce..........................................................53
Loss of knowledge capital..............................................................55
Knowledge management strategies................................................56
Knowledge preservation.................................................................57
Knowledge sharing.........................................................................58
Knowledge transfer.........................................................................58
Knowledge exchange......................................................................59
Knowledge retention.......................................................................59
Knowledge spillover.......................................................................60
Organizational Leadership..........................................................................60
Leadership theory............................................................................63
Manufacturing leadership practices................................................65
Team environment..........................................................................66
Future Aerospace Workforces....................................................................66
Knowledge workers........................................................................67
Gaps in the Literature.................................................................................68
Conclusion..................................................................................................69
Summary.....................................................................................................70
Chapter 3: Method..................................................................................................72
Research Design and Design Appropriateness...........................................73
ix
Population and Sampling............................................................................76
Interview Protocol.......................................................................................77
Research Questions.....................................................................................79
Informed Consent.......................................................................................80
Confidentiality............................................................................................81
Pilot Test.....................................................................................................82
Data Collection and Procedures..................................................................83
Post-Interview Reviews..............................................................................85
Data Analysis..............................................................................................85
Validity and Reliability...............................................................................88
Summary.....................................................................................................90
Chapter 4: Results...................................................................................................93
Review of the Problem Statement..............................................................94
Review of Research Questions...................................................................94
Pilot Study..................................................................................................95
Demographics of the Participants...............................................................95
Data Collection Process..............................................................................96
Transcription and Coding...........................................................................97
Data Analysis and Presentation of Findings...............................................99
Interview Question 1.....................................................................102
Interview Question 2.....................................................................102
Interview Question 3.....................................................................102
Interview Question 4.....................................................................103
x
Interview Question 5.....................................................................103
Interview Question 6.....................................................................103
Interview Question 7.....................................................................103
Interview Question 8.....................................................................103
Interview Question 9.....................................................................103
Interview Question 10...................................................................104
Interview Question 11...................................................................104
Interview Question 12...................................................................104
Theme 1: Emergent workforce.....................................................107
Theme 2: Leadership (Management) knowledge and skills.........109
Theme 3: Knowledge-sharing culture..........................................112
Theme 4: Organizational environment.........................................114
Theme 5: Organizational practices...............................................115
Theme 6: Knowledge retention strategies....................................117
Summary...................................................................................................119
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations....................................................121
Study Findings and Interpretations...........................................................123
Conclusion for research question 1..............................................126
Conclusion for research question 2..............................................127
Conclusion for research question 3..............................................129
Conclusion for research question 4..............................................130
Conclusion for research question 5...............................................131
Conclusion for central research question......................................133
xi
Policies..............................................................................133
Procedures.........................................................................134
Environment......................................................................134
Attitudes............................................................................135
Team dynamics.................................................................135
Management.....................................................................136
Leadership........................................................................137
Implications and Significance of the Findings.........................................138
Recommendations for the Future Research..............................................144
Scope and Limitations..............................................................................145
Summary...................................................................................................147
Researcher Reflections.............................................................................148
References.............................................................................................................151
Appendix A: Greeting Letter................................................................................183
Appendix B: Participant Demographic Profile.....................................................184
Appendix C: Interview Participation Card...........................................................187
Appendix D: Participant Identifier Coding..........................................................188
Appendix E: PRN Use Permission Form.............................................................189
Appendix F: Informed Consent Letter.................................................................190
Appendix G: Interview Procedure........................................................................191
Appendix H: Interview Questions........................................................................192
Appendix I: Confidentiality Statement Form.......................................................193
Appendix J: Premises, Recruitment and Name (PRN) Use Permission...............194
xii
Appendix K: Non-Disclosure Agreement ...........................................................195
Appendix L: Interview Notes and Observations..................................................197
Appendix M: A Process of Knowledge Preservation and Transfer:
Leadership Practices.......................................................................198
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Demographic Profile of the Participants..................................................96
Table 2: Node Classifications.................................................................................98
Table 3: Participants Internals Data........................................................................99
Table 4: Broad-brush Coding................................................................................101
Table 5: Questions and Associates Codes............................................................102
Table 6: Summaries of the Themes......................................................................124
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: An iterative process to investigate a particular theme............................87
Figure 2: Most frequently occurring words in the sources...................................100
Figure 3: Sources clustered by coding similarities...............................................107
Figure 4: The hierarchy of value creation............................................................142
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The intent of this qualitative collective case study was to examine leadership
practices in developing a knowledge-sharing culture and improving knowledge
preservation strategies in the aerospace industry to mitigate the threat of losing
operational knowledge as aging generations retire. Human resources in the United States
aerospace and defense industries currently face a challenge in attracting, recruiting,
developing, and retaining the next generation of human capital (Deloitte, 2012a; U.S.
Department of Labor, 2013). The manufacturing industry needs a culture that attracts top
talent, increases loyalty and productivity, and promotes employee engagement. A lack of
manufacturing leadership practices to capture the operational knowledge of the
retirement-age workforce may lead to a decreased competitive advantage and value
creation.
In a 2013 Global CEO study, the United States had an index score of 7.84, or
third place, whereas China led with a score of 10.00, and Germany ranked second with a
score of 7.98. The competitiveness forecast for the next 5 years (2018) shows that the
United States will move to the rank of fifth, with a score of 7.69 (Deloitte, 2012b). This
same study noted that a talent-driven novelty – the quality and availability of scientists,
researchers, and engineers – is one of the most important drivers of the U.S. economy’s
ability to compete (Deloitte, 2012b). However, a deficiency exists in the research of
novelty or the related concepts of a knowledge economy, an aging manufacturing
workforce, and the manufacturing culture in the United States, making solutions for the
lack of a knowledge-sharing culture difficult to find.
2
The study involved identifying manufacturing leadership practices that capture
the operational knowledge of the workforce at retirement age, leading to increased
competitive advantages. Knowledge and insight derived from this research study may be
useful to leaders and managers for implementing knowledge-preservation strategies,
creating an advanced culture, and adopting leadership practices to drive groundbreaking
processes in the manufacturing industry. This chapter presents the background of the
challenges to the U.S. manufacturing industry in a knowledge-based economy, the
exodus of an agile workforce, an aging aerospace workforce, a cultural shift toward
knowledge sharing, and the effect on organizational competitiveness. In addition, this
chapter includes the problem statement, background, the purpose of the study, its
significance, research questions, and theoretical framework. Chapter 1 concludes with a
presentation of the assumptions, scope, and definitions incorporated within this study.
Background of the Problem
In a 2010 survey of 400 CEOs and senior executives worldwide, the leaders
highlighted that a major driver of the country’s competitiveness in attracting
manufacturing is the availability of and access to talented workforces (The White House,
2011a). As U.S. leadership in manufacturing declines (U.S. GDP fell from 27% in 1957
to about 11% by 2009), other nations are investing heavily in advancing their
manufacturing industries, promoting national leadership, and adopting innovative
systems (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011; Carey, Hill, & Kahin, 2012; Popkin &
Kobe, 2010; The White House, 2011b).
The creation of new knowledge requires investment in human capital, and
advances in technology have resulted in global economic growth and prosperity
3
(Dasgupta & Dodge, 2010). The U.S. economy is facing unprecedented challenges in a
fast-moving global economy (Atkinson & Andes, 2010; Carey et al., 2012; Kahin & Hill,
2010; Opstal, 2010; Sakkab, 2011). The country is expected to fall behind because of the
rise of India (with a strong talent pool in the areas of science, technology, and research)
and Brazil (with favorable tax advantages, reduced lending rates, and energy costs)
(Deloitte, 2012b). The United States is slowly slipping down (2000–2009) the global
ranks, sliding from third to seventh place out of 125 countries in research and
development (R&D) spending (Carey et al., 2012). For leaders in the United States to
address this declining situation, an understanding of the global knowledge-based
economy is needed.
A global knowledge-based economy. The emergence of a global knowledge-
based economy presents genuine challenges to the U.S. economic leadership (Carey et
al., 2012). The U.S. workforce is in direct competition with lower-wage workers
throughout the world as the impact of globalization increases (Farr & Brazil, 2009;
Opstal, 2010; U.S. Department of Labor, 2014). Globalization has an impact on U.S.
workers’ wages and incomes, the effect is in lowering U.S. wages to those wages paid in
other countries (U.S. Department of Labor, 2014). The knowledge is transferable and
can be imported to low-wage employees, creating a void in the formation of the domestic
smart workforce and availability of talented individuals. An understanding of the
knowledge systems of the knowledge-driven organizations in the aerospace
manufacturing industry is needed, particularly on the leadership practices that support the
different types of knowledge acquired, formed, and mobilized within a whole
organization.
4
Globalization and offshoring affect employees in the aerospace industry in two
ways: substitute and complementary. A substitute provides operational benefits to low-
wages countries but minimizes knowledge preservation in the source of its creation and
conversion into new products, services, and innovative processes. Another effect is
complementary, or the diversification of the workforce: the employees have benefits in
other countries, but it is still required to create an open system organization where the
import and export of critical knowledge exchanges are acceptable, safe, protected, and
secure. Obiagwu (2007) argued that the practice of offshore job outsourcing hurts the
lifestyles of the U.S. workers and their families, creating a combination of economic,
financial, and social insecurities.
Knowledge economy is driven by the knowledgeable workers. Their availability
for employment in the manufacturing industry affects organizational performance,
competitiveness capabilities, and industry advantage. Employees’ wages, family
lifestyles, financial security, and personal workability are affected by leadership practices
in choosing the ways network knowledge structures are emerging, forming, and
accessing. In the United States, during the 12-year period from 1995 to 2007, there was a
27% growth in labor productivity resulting from business investment in R&D, design,
and new business models (OECD, 2012). The U.S. open economy should (a) grow and
attract talent that is more scientific, (b) encourage and attract foreign investments, and (c)
intensify R&D to reassert U.S. leadership (Popkin & Kobe, 2010). The manufacturing
industry accounts for 9% of private R&D, 11% of GDP, 35% of engineers, and 90% of
U.S. patents. Hemphill (2013) argued that a national manufacturing strategy is needed to
maintain the United States’ leadership in the 21st-century global economy.
5
Knowledge economy. The defining characteristics of a knowledge economy are
knowledge-intensive activities that generate, develop, employ, and exploit knowledge in
producing products and providing services (Clarke, 2001; Walter & Snellman, 2004).
The knowledge economy will continue to be the key driver of economic growth and
prosperity in the 21st century (Hogan, 2011). Application of knowledge plays a key role
throughout a knowledge economy by improving production, creation, distribution,
transmission, transfer, and re-use (Carey et al., 2012; Clarke, 2001; Felin, Zenger, &
Tomsik, 2009; Hogan, 2011). Henard and McFadyen (2008) stated that the competitive
environment of a knowledge economy is uncertain and unpredictable.
Darling (2009) argued that the U.S. socioeconomic system is currently in a
turmoil unlike any other in its history. Furthermore, the U.S. manufacturing sector
requires global maintenance, development, and expansion to compete with other world
economies (Hemphill & Perry, 2012). The new global system of knowledge economy
demands a knowledgeable workforce that is smart, self-leading, and self-programmable
(Adams & Demaiter, 2007; Campbell, Coff, & Kryscynski, 2012; Peters, 2011).
The U.S. manufacturing industry. Manufacturing employment was hard hit
during the 2007–2009 recessions, losing two million jobs, or 14.6% (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2010). Furthermore, a report by Deloitte (2011) noted that a shortage of a
skilled workforce directly affects manufacturers’ ability to “expand operations, drive
innovation, and improve productivity” (p. 1). The manufacturing industry contributes
$1.8 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, employs nearly 12 million Americans, and
needs a modern manufacturing workplace for the skilled workforce (NAM, 2013).
Minter (2013) argued that U.S. manufacturing bore the brunt of globalization and the
6
recent recession because of the loss of 6 million jobs in the last decade (U.S. Labor
Department, 2010). The U.S. manufacturing sector serves as an engine for innovation,
smart services, lean and green production, and knowledge production (Opstal, 2010; The
White House, 2011b). The lack of a skilled workforce will combine with aging
demographics of the manufacturing workforce, creating an environment of risk for
America’s manufacturing renaissance. Organizational success depends on the leaders’
ability to nurture a culture and cultivate trust, divergent thinking, pride, knowledge
sharing, camaraderie, and the free flow of information (Deloitte, 2012a; Hunter &
Cushnbery, 2011).
Organizational culture. Organizational culture within an organization is
reflected by how leaders treat their employees (Mahrokian, Chun, Mangkrnkanok, & Lee,
2010). Leaders must develop organizational cultures able to retain employees across
generations (Eversole, Venneberg, & Crowder, 2012). Leaders must exercise care in
honoring their cultural strengths and focusing on changing a few crucial behaviors rather
than attempting wholesale transformation (Katzenbach, Steffen, & Kronley, 2012). For
example, building strengths within the culture of an organization will help build and
sustain a competitive advantage by attracting top talent (Ahmed, 1998; Kaafarani &
Stevenson, 2011; Mahrokian et al., 2010; Wolf, 2011).
Several authors stated that an organizational leadership with an effective strategy
that develops and fosters human capital increases organizational competitiveness
(Conceicao & Altman, 2011; McEntire & Greene-Shortridge, 2012; Rothaermel & Hess,
2010; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008). Shavinina (2011) stated that under conditions of
uncertainty, leaders must be able to propose new ideas, practice a system’s thinking, and
7
to make systems thinking work. Leaders must serve as models of collaborative behavior
in an organization to develop a knowledge-sharing culture and support knowledge
preservation strategies.
Developing a knowledge-sharing culture. Leaders in organizations are adapting
knowledge transfer techniques too slowly to motivate employees who are critical to the
organization as knowledge contributors (Eversole et al., 2012). According to Lefter,
Manolescu, Cristian, and Ramona (2009), organizational survival depends on motivated
employees because motivation encourages entrepreneurial and independent thinking.
The manufacturing industry requires leaders who possess knowledge and practice skills
in nurturing a knowledge-sharing culture, adapt to changes in organizational culture, and
lead knowledgeable workforces to succeed and compete (Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011;
Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Heskett, Sasser, & Wheeler, 2008; Mosley 2010; Oster,
2010). The knowledge gap of the U.S. aerospace manufacturing leaders includes the
knowledge, talent, and skills needed to address the challenges of fostering a knowledge-
sharing culture, knowledge retention strategies, knowledge worker retention, and growth
for knowledge-based organizations.
An aging workforce. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2013), about ten
thousand Baby Boomers in the United States will turn sixty-five every day until 2030.
As the Baby Boomer generation transitions into retirement, organizations must plan for
the replacement of this large and knowledgeable cohort of workers (Calo, 2008). In the
U.S. aerospace industry, 25% of employees were eligible for retirement in 2008
(American Visa Bureau, 2008). Furthermore, 60% of the aerospace industry workforce is
45 or older, and 27% of those are from the engineering workforce that is eligible to retire
8
(Denney, 2011). The U.S. manufacturing industry employed 15,281,307 people, or
10.8%, and in Washington State the figures were 330,083 people, or 10.5% (U.S. Census,
2013).
The report (Washington Council on Aerospace, 2010) claimed that the main
challenge is developing targeted marketing strategies to recruit talented individuals to
replace the retiring highly skilled workers of the aerospace industry. Calhoon (2011)
stated that more than 83,700 people work in the aerospace industry and that over 650
companies have set up operations in Washington. More than 50% of Washington
aerospace workers are above the age of 45, and the aerospace industry will need more
than 21,000 new workers over the next decade to fill new jobs (WCA, 2010).
For example, the average Boeing employee’s age is 48 and approximately 28% of
Boeing’s current employees are eligible to retire (age 55 or older) (Burreson, 2013). The
aerospace workforce is aging, and the employees who will retire in the next 10 to 15
years portend a significant drop in highly skilled workers. The challenges facing the
aerospace industry include an aging workforce, an impending decline in skilled STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and math) workforces, and difficulty with workforce
recruitment and retention (AIA, 2008). Human capital policies that stimulate the
workforce will accelerate the improvement of business efficiency and encourage
investments in STEM education and skilled-trade training (Leonard & Waldman, 2007).
Manufacturing competitivenes in the long-term depends on organizational human
policies that focus on attracting high-caliber workforces and on offering access to
financial assistance to individuals pursuing a STEM education (Denney, 2011; Leonard
& Waldman, 2007).
9
According to Platzer (2009), there is concern among aerospace companies over
the rapid loss of their institutional knowledge base. The knowledge gap caused by the
rapid attrition of knowledgeable workers and the increased complexity of the
manufacturing environment has led to a knowledge deficit that affects the speed and
fidelity with which manufacturers make decisions. An aging workforce and a brain drain
beset the U.S. aerospace industry as older workers retire. The latter especially will create
a vacuum in the pipeline of the knowledge works needed by the industry. The 2011
Deloitte summary report stated that, “finding a skilled workforce at the desired cost is
critical to continued viability, growth, and innovation” (p. 10). Aging generations within
the workforce will take operational knowledge with them upon retirement unless leaders
foster a knowledge-sharing culture in which employees create and circulate knowledge.
Operational knowledge. Manufacturing industry leadership practices are exposed
to knowledge loss because the industry has experienced a knowledge gap due to a lack of
interest of the young generation in becoming part of the manufacturing workforce.
Crucial knowledge is tacit and embedded in the heads of knowledge workers. The aging
manufacturing workforce is a phenomenon that poses the risk of losing a massive amount
of operational knowledge. Operational knowledge is tacit knowledge required to perform
and explicit knowledge gathered from application, observation, failures, and success. A
significant challenge to the U.S. is to capture and preserve critical operational knowledge
of the retiring Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964 (Baquero & Dudek, 2009).
Recruiting, motivating, and retaining a talented workforce requires long-term
strategies in the manufacturing industry. The lack of a knowledge transfer process results
in the continuous loss of unrecoverable knowledge that older workers possess if not
10
captured before they retire (Calo, 2008). Knowledge transfer happens when two sides are
aligned in the exchange process: (a) the sharing of knowledge by the knowledge creator
and (b) the acquisition and application of knowledge by the receiver (Wang & Noe,
2010). That condition in transferring an operational knowledge to the next generation in
the manufacturing industry must be met for building an army of knowledge workers for
the 21st-century knowledge economy.
Statement of the Problem
The general problem is that aging workforces depart from organizations, taking
with them the operational knowledge needed for the next generation to become
knowledgeable workers in the aerospace manufacturing industry. In 2012, according to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013), more than 16% of the United States’s
employed workforce was, on average, between 55 and 64, while 28% of Washington
State’s employees are aged between 55 and 64. The labor force over the age of 65 will
increase from 3% in 2005 to almost 8% in 2030, rising in number from 103,400 to
325,400 (WA Workforce Board, 2008). The report published in February 2012 by the
Council on Competitiveness in United States Manufacturing’s Competitiveness Initiative
stated that 2.7 million workers, or one-fourth of all United States employees, are above
the age of 55 (Council on Competitiveness, 2012). The aging workforce presents a
knowledge gap, created when employees retire and take their storehouses of knowledge
with them (Council on Competitiveness, 2012; Divakaran, Mani, & Post, 2012). A
cultural change is required for manufacturing jobs in such contexts to attract the next
generation of employees (Minter, 2013). Employees in the manufacturing industry must
pass their knowledge on to others for the knowledge to be leveraged (Caro, 2008). The
11
manufacturing industry and the aerospace industry face a risk of losing valuable
knowledge when members of the knowledgeable workforce decide to leave the
organization, taking their knowledge with them.
The specific problem addressed in the study is that the lack of manufacturing
leadership practices that capture the operational knowledge of employees who are of
retiring age may lead to a decreased competitive advantage in the aerospace
manufacturing industry. Researchers demonstrated that manufacturers are trying to
preserve and transfer knowledge, re-skill their workforces, and build new capabilities
(Dagupta & Dodge, 2010; Divakaran et. al, 2012). When leaders empower
knowledgeable employees by giving them tools to act as a motivational force in novelty
and creativity, they can develop and deploy knowledge-based resources more effectively
(Austin, Claassen, Vu, & Mizrahi, 2008; Carleton, 2011; Lakshman, 2009; O'Dell &
Hubert, 2011; Singh, 2011). Studies show that aerospace companies need leaders and
managers capable of developing a knowledge-sharing culture and preserving strategies to
capture the knowledge of highly experienced engineers in the aerospace industry
(Christopian, 2008; Deloris, 2013; McNichols, 2008).
This qualitative collective case study involved an examination of leadership
challenges in the aerospace manufacturing industry in the U.S. state of Washington. This
study focused on how leaders can (a) resolve the knowledge gap and develop a
competitive advantage by building a culture of knowledge sharing and (b) transform
manufacturing workers into technical, highly skilled production professionals by driving
multigenerational legacy knowledge in talented individuals. The results of the research
include insights into manufacturing leadership practices implemented to capture the
12
operational knowledge of the retirement-aged workforce, leading to increased
competitive advantage.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this collective case study was to investigate the people-focused
practices leaders use to build and nurture a culture of innovation and knowledge sharing,
enabling a smooth transfer of operational knowledge within multigenerational workforces
in the aerospace manufacturing industry. The case study design supports achieving these
goals: explain, interpret, predict, and understand human behaviors (Yin, 2014). This
study was designed to obtain new data about the required knowledge and skills of
organizational leaders developing innovation strategies that focus on people as the key to
achieving a competitive advantage (Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Kaafarani &
Stevenson, 2011).
The population for the proposed study included organizational leaders, managers,
and subordinates from aerospace manufacturing companies in Washington State, a global
leader in the aerospace industry (WA Department of Commerce, 2010). A case study
allows the researcher to develop a better understanding of how multiple cases provide
new perspectives on a phenomenon or an issue (Yin, 2014). This qualitative study
involved the collective case research design to explore the real-life experiences of the
knowledge carriers – leaders, managers, and subordinates – responsible for nurturing a
knowledge-sharing culture that rewards and recognizes knowledge-sharing behaviors
within members of the whole organization (Austin et al., 2008). The design included in-
depth, semi-structured interviews consisting of 12 questions to gather information on
perceived leadership skills as they affect building a knowledge-sharing culture involving
13
generational knowledge transfer, knowledge preservation strategies, and better fostering
of open innovation (inflows and outflows of knowledge) in the manufacturing industry.
The goal of the study was to discover leadership practices in the aerospace
manufacturing industry that build and nurture a knowledge-sharing culture that supports
aging workforces in sharing their operational knowledge and workplace experience. By
identifying which factors increase a climate of cooperation among multigenerational and
multicultural workforces, the manufacturing industry may increase organizational
productivity and competitiveness overall. Industry leadership will need to respond with a
mindset to encourage an open, agile, and collaborative culture needed to lead the
innovative processes and develop the capabilities of multigenerational workforces for the
aerospace manufacturing industry in a knowledge-based economy (Bel, 2010; Boatman
& Welkins, 2011; Deloitte, 2011; Gupta, 2011; Kanfer, 2009; Legrand & Weiss, 2011;
The White House, 2011b). Furthermore, organizational novelty requires an effective
knowledge-management system accessible to knowledgeable workers to foster employee
creativity and organizational-wide novelty (Costa, Lima, Antunes, Figueiras, & Parada,
2010; Henard & McFadyen, 2008).
Research discoveries included insights useful to the leaders responsible for the
development of well-articulated knowledge preservation strategies focused on
identifying, prioritizing, and capturing critical operational knowledge from departing
employees. This study consisted of the newest knowledge of those leadership practices
in the aerospace manufacturing industry needed to build a culture that supports openness,
inclusion, collaboration, cooperation, and commitment. Additionally, this study was
designed to provide information useful for leaders in the aerospace industry who seek to
14
gain a competitive advantages and build a knowledge-sharing culture that transforms
manufacturing jobs into technical, high-skilled production professional positions by
driving multigenerational legacy knowledge into talented individuals.
Significance of the Study
The findings are useful for leaders who seek to create a knowledge-sharing
culture within multigenerational workforces. The study involved finding the
manufacturing leadership practices that capture the operational knowledge of the
workforce at retirement age, leading to an increased competitive advantage. The
application of the concept of a knowledge economy was helpful in identifying and
contextualizing these practices. Organizations created in the knowledge economy have
advantages because their leadership, cultural, and organizational processes are not bound
to the organizational design of the industrial economy (Leqrand & Weiss, 2011).
Twenty-first century leadership requires new thinking and direction to operate in the
global market (Guillory, Harding, & Guillory, 2011). Henard and McFadyen (2008)
argued that organizational novelty is less effective when leaders practice the classic
business approach of tightening control and constraining resources. Organizational
leaders cannot function efficiently when the design of their manufacturing companies is
based on the functional principles of the 20th century (Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008;
Boatman & Welkins, 2011; Kanfer, 2009; Legrand & Weiss, 2011).
Significance of the Study to Leadership
Organizational leaders might find this research study useful because it contains
reference material for possible changes in manufacturing culture and serves as a
background for a knowledge-sharing culture, in which the aging workforce is motivated
15
to share the critical operational knowledge within a multigenerational organizational
workforce. Successful companies hold onto leaders not only because of their knowledge,
skills, and abilities to operate efficiently, but also because of their relational capabilities
to associate with others to realize their visions and goals (Blanchard, 1999; Dervitsiotos,
2010; McCallum & O’Connell, 2009). Murray and Greenes (2006) emphasized the
urgent need for companies to transform themselves and adapt to the modern world.
Peters (2011) posited that creativity, design, and novelty are at the heart of the global
knowledge economy. Organizational leaders will face challenges because of the new
knowledge economy and global business strategies.
Srinivasan (2010) argued that innovation strategy and the creation of a culture that
promotes sharing knowledge in the workforce are critical elements for organizational
survival. A number of authors stated that innovative strategy must support open
innovation, and supporting open innovation requires a significant change in the
organization’s culture (Srinivasan, 2010; Traitler, Watzke, & Saquy, 2011). Targeted and
integrated cultural interventions are needed for implementing a process of novelty (Katz,
2012; Legrand & Weiss, 2011).
The study focused on leadership practices in the aerospace manufacturing
industry that build and nurture a culture that promotes shared operational knowledge in
multigenerational workforces to survive in a continuously changing business
environment. Leadership practices in an organization that supports the ingenuity of
leaders, managers, and subordinates may add to the knowledge in the area of
organizational leadership. The aim of the study was to identify leadership skills that can
build a manufacturing culture and environment of knowledge sharing across generations,
16
including cross-functional communication. Organizations may experience a burst of
human and organizational productivity by delegating leadership tasks and responsibilities
to the extent that they allow employees to deploy all of their talents and knowledge
(Kaafarani & Stevenson, 2011; Leonard & Waldman, 2007; Rubenstein, 2005).
The identification and implementation of these leadership and management skills
can help the manufacturing industry recover its former leading status in innovation. The
proposed research study was designed to provide new knowledge about organizational
leadership for leaders and managers responsible for: (a) strategies that cultivate a
knowledge-sharing culture, to close knowledge gaps between workforce generations; (b)
knowledge preservation strategies; and (c) initiating a further round of advance in the
aerospace industry.
Nature of the Study
A qualitative method with a collective case research design was appropriate for
the proposed research study to explore the lived experiences of participants. The study
included a sample of 17 individuals (two participated in a pilot study and 15 in the full-
scale study) including leaders, managers, and subordinates from the aerospace
manufacturing industry in the Puget Sound region in the state of Washington. Use of the
collective case design in this qualitative study occurred to explore personal knowledge
(Christensen, Johnson, & Turner, 2011; Yin, 2014). Whittemore and Melkus (2008)
stated that the blueprint of a study is the research design.
Quantitative researchers typically start with a general area of study or an issue of
professional or personal interest and then choose a method that allows them to
objectively measure: (a) variables of interest and (b) procedures of the data collection
17
(Leedy & Ormrod, 2009; Neuman, 2006; Whittemore & Melkus, 2008). Quantitative
researchers identify data sources that are consistent, quantifiable, objective, and precise
(Neuman, 2006; Whittemore & Melkus, 2008). Neuman (2006) and Creswell (2005)
stated that quantitative researchers emphasize the need for precisely measuring variables
and testing hypotheses, which is not the case for this study.
Creswell (1998) identified the five major types of qualitative studies as:
bibliography, case study, ethnography, ground theory, and phenomenology. Creswell
(2007) stated that a case study research is “the study of an issue explored through one or
more cases within a bounded system” (p. 73). A case study involved study of a single
industry, the aerospace manufacturing industry. The qualitative collective case study
approach was appropriate for the study because a qualitative study explores a specific
phenomenon or experience to build further understanding of a leader’s behavior, skills,
and knowledge in leading and managing innovative processes (Baker, 2006; Christensen
et al., 2011; Creswell, 1998; Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Neuman (2006) noted that
researchers use purposeful sampling for a specialized population in qualitative studies.
The quality of the data in a qualitative study is in-depth, providing deep insight into the
topic and exploring the participants’ lived experiences about a certain issue (Baker,
2006). The qualitative research method involves gathering soft data in the form of words
and sentences. By contrast, the quantitative method is based on numerical data (Neuman,
2006).
This study was qualitative in nature. In qualitative research, sources of data
consist primarily of field observations, face-to-face interviews, and analysis of the
documents (Shank, 2006; Whittemore & Melkus, 2008). In a qualitative study, the
18
researchers begin the study with self-assessment and reflections about themselves as
situated in a socio-historical context because the research design is focused on subjective
experiences, and the aim is to describe or understand phenomena within the contexts in
which they occur (Neuman, 2006; Whittemore & Melkus, 2008).
The proposed research process involved real-life interaction to collect current
information and transform the information into a meaningful report. Collection of
information through face-to-face interaction with participants was required. The
interview consisted of 12 open-ended questions to guide the interview process. To
conduct a rigorous study, it is necessary to investigate patterns, variations, and
possibilities in data collection and analysis (Christensen et al., 2011; Creswell, 2007;
Neuman, 2006).
Hsieh and Shannon (2010) suggested that subjective interpretation of the content
of text data in qualitative content analysis requires (a) the systematic classification of
data, (b) coding, and (c) identifying themes or patterns. The inferring of central themes
in this study was achieved by using NVivo 10© software to analyze the data from semi-
structured interview transcripts. The proposed research study was to identify emergent
central themes of manufacturing culture and knowledge retention strategies concerning
leadership practices based on the experiences of organizational leaders, managers, and
subordinates in the manufacturing industry. A qualitative method with a collective case
study research design was appropriate for the proposed research study to explore the
lived experiences and phenomena of 17 leaders, managers, and subordinates.
19
Research Questions
The research questions addressed in this study related to leaders’, managers’, and
subordinates’ experiences and the perceptions affecting knowledge preservation
strategies to manage operational knowledge, shifts in manufacturing culture, and
leadership practices focused on people in a multigenerational workforce. The central
research question (CRQ) in the study was, “What knowledge and skills do leaders need to
develop an effective, knowledge-sharing culture in organizations?”
The study included five sub-questions for exploration:
RQ1: What are the particular risks and challenges that companies face in ensuring
the transfer of the operational knowledge that aging workforces possess before
they retire?
RQ2: What is the effect of leadership practices on nurturing a knowledge-sharing
culture?
RQ3: How can organizational leaders improve their leadership skills for leading
aging workforces in the aerospace manufacturing industry?
RQ4: How are leadership practices used to establish a work environment that
values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers?
RQ5: What is an organizational strategy to attract, develop, and retain an aging
workforce?
Theoretical Framework
Understanding how leaders influence and contribute to organizational culture is
useful for determining how leaders can create, develop, and nurture a knowledge-sharing
culture. This section presents the theoretical framework of the study in terms of the
20
leaders’ knowledge and skills in postmodern leadership, organizational complexity,
changes in organizational culture, and organizational learning. Green (2007) found that
new values in organizations are created by blending modern and postmodern values.
Modernism involves placing humans at the center of reality whereas postmodernism
involves placing no one at the center. Organizational culture is challenged by the
postmodernist values of the emergent multigenerational workforces of the 21st century.
Postmodernism includes several themes: pluralism, non-objectivism, deconstructionism,
cynicism/pessimism, and a sense of the community (Green, 2007). Postmodernism is a
result of the cultural revival of the 1980s, including the schism between modernism and
postmodernism in postindustrial organizations (Schultz, 1992).
According to Schreiber and Somers (2006), the complexity leadership theory
recognizes the organizational paradox in the postmodern organization, and leaders
recognize that the organization is a complex adaptive system. Hazy, Goldstein, and
Lichtenstein (2007) concluded that the leadership, as a systematic event, emerges out of
complex systems of human interaction in the organization. The complex leader seeks to
spawn emergent behavior and creative surprises (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien,
Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) concluded that a complex
leader’s role was to create transformational environments necessary to drop seeds of
emergence – enable useful behaviors, vibrancy for idea generations, and the cultivation of
networks.
Leaders consider both formal and informal leadership to interact within and
across organizations (Hanson & Ford, 2010). Hanson and Ford (2010) stated that formal
leaders influence through the authority of their office. By contrast, informal leaders
21
emerge based on relationships (Hanson & Ford, 2010). This theory recognizes leadership
practices in leading efficiency, control, creativity, learning, novelty, and adaptability
(Hanson & Ford, 2010; Schreiber & Carley, 2006; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).
According to Green (2008), a leader must be able to influence and guide followers
about corporate values, norms, expectations, and practices. Organizational culture
determines the set of core values held across the organization (Makins, Nagao, &
Bennett, 2012). Green (2008) argued that leaders must explain corporate value systems
to the current emergent workforce with competing values in the postmodern period.
Therefore, leaders must define, clarify, and reinforce the understanding of actions and
beliefs to help build an organizational culture that fosters a desire to compete (Haneberg,
2009). In particular, positive correlations are associated with building and continuously
managing culture (Mahrokian et al., 2010). Organizational culture reinforces particular
leadership behaviors (Chatman & Cha, 2003; Haudan, 2011; Mosley & Patrick, 2011).
Leadership behavior affects (a) the climate for creativity, (b) cross-generational
knowledge transfer, and (c) knowledge preservation.
Edwards (2010) noted that innovation by leadership practices exhibiting
adaptability, efficacy, influence, and growth is more effective. Supportive and innovative
leadership affects the organization by nurturing a climate receptive to change (Edwards,
2010; Smith, 2010). Inabinett (2010) noted that significant benefits for the organization
are achieved by matching organizational culture to individual values. Chatman and Cha
(2003) posited that a clear, consistent, and comprehensive culture is a powerful force and
concluded that the leader’s primary role is to “develop and maintain an effective culture”
(p. 32). Leadership behavior, organizational culture, and a climate for creativity result in
22
an environment conducive to novelty in the future (Ahmed, 1998; Chatman & Cha, 2003;
Inabinett, 2010; Sarros et al., 2008). Creating an effective culture among leaders and
employees can enrich harmony and fosters communication, cooperation, and
commitment.
Singh (2011) suggested that organizational learning promotes creativity,
continuous improvement, and novelty. Singh claimed that the move from organizational
learning to knowledge creation and sharing “depends to a larger extent on the nature of
organizational learning and generation as well as sharing of knowledge among people at
the workplace” (p. 717). The results of organizational learning are based on the
development, acquisition, transformation, and exploitation of new knowledge. Baxter,
Connolly, and Stansfield (2009) wrote that organizational learning is dependent on a
created culture within an organization.
According to Carleton (2011), a culture that fosters learning and engagement is
valuable for retaining the best and brightest employees. Austin (2008) noted that the
development of staff within a learning culture could be the key to retaining talented
employees. Leadership development is a strategic investment in organizational
development (Chatman & Cha, 2003; Goncalves, 2012; Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012;
Mohanta & Thooyamani, 2010). Greater organizational agility and adaptation occurs
when the employee learning is embedded into organizational systems, processes, and
structures. These are powerful tools enabling organizations to gain strategic advantages
based on cultural consideration of employee thought about organizational culture, its
origins, leadership power, and management practices.
23
Definitions of Terms
This section provides definitions of the terms used in this study:
Knowledge economy. This term is defined as production and services based on
knowledge-intensive activities and the generation and exploitation of knowledge. It is
reliant on the effectiveness of developing and utilizing knowledge (Atkinson & Andes,
2010; Clarke, 2001; Walter & Snellman, 2004).
Knowledge management. This term is the process of capturing, organizing, and
storing the knowledge of individuals or groups within an organization and making it
available to others. The data and information are converted to knowledge and
subsequently disseminated throughout the organization (Lakshman, 2009; Wand & Noe,
2010).
Knowledge retention. The ability to capture and hold information and experience
from Baby Boomers prior to their retirement (Paladino, 2007).
Knowledge worker. “The key occupations included in this category are research
scientists, engineers, consultants, advertising and marketing executives, architects,
filmmakers, writers, journalists, and even university professors” (as cited in Darr, 2007,
p. 5). Knowledge workers are defined as workers in the managerial, professional, and
technical occupations (Atkinson & Andes, 2010).
Motivation. The term is defined as an energizing force driving innovation
(Forbes, 2011).
Organizational culture. An organizational culture includes assumptions,
premises, norms, beliefs, and values that organizational members share and express at the
workplace (Jones, 2010; Pervaiz, 1998; Ramthun & Matkin, 2012).
24
Novelty culture. The characteristics of a culture of innovation include being open
to the ideas of others, sharing information, tolerating risk, embracing change and
ambiguity, abandoning the status quo, focusing on creative tension, seeking novelty and
ingenuity, and sharing skills and knowledge among the members of the whole
organization (Eagler & Kusiak, 2011; Hamer, 2010; Haneberg, 2009; Mercan & Goktas,
2011; Morris, 2007).
Assumptions
The researcher in qualitative research is committed to the notion of making sure
research efforts are true, allowing the facts to speak for themselves and removing
personal reflection from the facts (Lacono, 2009; Shank, 2006). Carefully defining
concepts and consequential constructs helps eliminate ambiguity and establishes a basis
for ensuring construct validity and reliable operational definitions of the variables (Black,
1999). Errors in using measuring systems, prejudices and opinions, influences, and a
lack of objectivity in research all lead to biased views and results (Lacono, 2009; Leedy
& Ormorod, 2009; Shank, 2006). A case study provides a humanistic, holistic
understanding of complex situations at workplace in the aerospace industry. To obtain
insights into the participants, the researcher must purposefully select individuals with the
lived experiences that maximize understanding of the case in question (Onwueguzie &
Leech, 2007).
Several assumptions undergirded this study. The primary assumption was that the
participants responded honestly and remained unbiased and truthful in all responses. The
participants worked in aerospace companies located in the Puget Sound region of
Washington. The expertise of the selected experts was assumed to be relevant to the
25
general objective and specific themes of the study. The second assumption was that
identification of 30 participants appropriate for inclusion in the sample was possible. The
third assumption was that 15 participants are sufficient to achieve saturation of the data.
The final assumption was that the participants may be biased by how well their company
is doing in their assessment of effectiveness or show a bias according to who they are
within the organization (leaders, managers, or subordinates). Participants may not admit
responsibility for failure but may claim credit for success.
Scope
The target population included organizational leaders, managers, and subordinates
of aerospace manufacturing companies in the aerospace industry in the Puget Sound
region of Washington. Whereas a specific sample size was hard to predetermine, the aim
of this study was to interview 15 participants. The study proceeded to the full-scale when
15 participants agreed to participate in the research. Creswell (2002) stated that
purposeful sampling permits for “select individuals and sites to learn or understand the
central phenomenon” (p. 194). The interview process involved exploring the perceptions
and lived experiences of those leaders, managers, and subordinates using skills and
knowledge to build and nurture a culture promoting shared operational knowledge in
multigenerational workforces to survive in a continuously changing business
environment.
Introducing the study objectives was critical to motivating participants to share
their personal time and knowledge. The semi-structured face-to-face interview sessions
included open-ended questions, and a recording of each interview was transcribed into
narrative text for analysis. Each participant received a copy of the transcribed interview
26
for verification and validation. After the participants had confirmed the accuracy of the
direct transcription of the interviews, the data analysis phase of the study was initiated.
While a specific sample size could not be predetermined as to when themes may become
repetitive, the aim of this study was to interview 15 participants.
Limitations
Creswell (2002) defined limitations as a potential weakness or problems with a
study. Purposeful sampling when selecting participants for the study allows the
researcher to select sites to learn or understand the central phenomenon (Creswell, 2002).
Because of the purposive sampling method, the participants may not represent the
experiences of those who actively participate in creating, building, and nurturing a culture
that supports sharing knowledge within multigenerational workforces. This limitation
could decrease the ability to generalize the findings given that the sample size consists of
15 participants from the aerospace manufacturing industry in the Puget Sound region in
the state of Washington. Another limitation was that the proposed study was focused on
the aerospace manufacturing sector instead of the wider manufacturing industry that
includes leaders, managers, and subordinates with innovative leadership capabilities,
capacities, and competencies. Combining respondents from all sectors in the
manufacturing industry could provide wider perspectives from respondents. To minimize
the possibility of personal biases, the interviews contained only open-ended questions.
Delimitations
Delimitations are the restricting factors for narrowing the extent of the study
(Creswell, 2007). The external reliability and the ability to generalize results in the
broader populations are affected by delimitations. The purpose of this delimitation was
27
to eliminate types of manufacturing industries that may have emerged from conducting a
study with a broader listing. According to Siegel (2002), qualitative researchers collect
data throughout their studies to the saturation point. Samples should not be so small that
researchers cannot reach data saturation (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). The number of
companies for this research also delimits the findings and recommendations of this study.
In this study, the participants came from four organizations to provide insight
into leadership practices in leading multigenerational workforces as a workforce structure
phenomenon of the aerospace industry. The study was restricted to a sample of 17
experienced leaders, managers, and subordinates (two participated in a pilot study and 15
in the full-scale study) representing different organization types and sizes with present
and past functional roles as knowledgeable employees within the Puget Sound region’s
aerospace manufacturing industry in the U.S. state of Washington. Face-to-face
interviews permitted a more in-depth collection of information.
The possibility exists that data gathering from the perceptions and lived
experience of the study participants may not be generalized to a wider population. The
participants were leaders, managers, and subordinates who had created an organizational
environment where innovation flourishes by creating a knowledge-sharing culture,
knowledge retention systems, and effective cross-generational knowledge exchange
programs/processes/procedures.
Summary
Chapter 1 included the background information about the topic of study, a
statement of the problem, and the purpose of the study. Leaders create organizational
cultures by setting an example of living the elements of culture: actions, behaviors,
28
beliefs, manners, measures, norms, and values (Beard & Zuniga, 2006; Joiner, 2009;
Haneberg, 2009; Heskett et al., 2008). Leaders are at the edge of creating a culture by
their commitment to support and sustain the intent of the behavior change (Conceicao &
Altman, 2011; Haudan, 2011; Tetenbaum, & Laurence, 2011). Building, growing,
fostering, and nurturing a novelty culture is a transformative process (Ahmed, 1998;
Gupta, 2011; Haudan, 2011; Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Prabhu, 2010; Ramadani &
Gerguri, 2011). Understanding organizational culture is useful for determining how
leaders can (a) enable easier information flow, (b) create motivation and opportunities,
and (c) remove obstacles to knowledge sharing in organizations.
Knowledge generation and competitive advantage in the 21st century U.S.
manufacturing industry requires leaders with the skills and knowledge to identify drivers
of novelty (talented employees, networks/relationships, managers, and leaders) and to
create an environment for an emergent order, emergent organization, and emergent
culture. According to Denney (2011), the United States must increase the numbers of
science and engineering talent to rebuild its foundation of competitiveness because of
international competition. Furthermore, the aerospace industry faces a risk of losing
valuable operational knowledge when employees decide to leave the organization, taking
information with them (Denney, 2011; Katz, 2012, McNichols, 2008; NAM, 2013;
Popkin & Kobe, 2010; Wallace, 2010).
Organizational culture can be nurtured by investing in novelty, strategic
leadership, and emergent workforces (Chesbrough, 2012; Mercan & Göktaş, 2011; Sako,
2012). The questions addressed in the qualitative research related to organizational
culture, multigenerational workforce, and leadership practices. The goal was to create a
29
knowledge-sharing culture that supported an employee’s ingenuity and shares operational
knowledge across multiple generations in the workforce. Chapter 1 included the study’s
questions and theoretical framework.
Chapter 2 contains reviews of various innovational leadership processes,
organizational cultures, emerging workforces, and complexity leadership theory. The
literature review is a detailed analysis of more than 130 peer-reviewed articles, textbooks,
and doctoral dissertations. Chapter 2 includes loopholes in the current literature, which
further justifies the need for further study.
30
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Chapter 1 included an overview of the study’s background. It included
description of the challenges that organizational leaders face as they build a knowledge-
sharing culture in this competitive, knowledge-driven 21st-century economy. In this
milieu, an aging generation within the aerospace workforce will retire, taking its
operational knowledge with them. The purpose of this chapter was to provide a review of
the extensive literature germane to this study on how a leader’s knowledge and skills may
assist in (a) developing an effective strategy in knowledge preservation processes, (b)
building and nurturing a knowledge-sharing culture, and (c) implementing effective
leadership practices to lead a multigenerational workforce. Moreover, to contextualize
the present research objectives in scholarship, this chapter includes a review of broad
concepts, such as workforce motivation and organizational and corporate culture. The
chapter also contains a discussion of knowledge-management strategies, the aging
aerospace workforce, the multigenerational workforce, corporate culture, information on
a knowledge-sharing culture, and creative techniques in leading emergent workforces.
Afterwards, sections on specific theories of leadership follow. The chapter concludes
with a summary and an introduction to the study’s methodology, as detailed in Chapter 3.
The primary search engine for resources in this study was the University of
Phoenix library, which provides access to thousands of peer-reviewed articles,
dissertations, scholarly texts, research journals, and periodicals. To write this chapter, a
thorough search occurred to find literature and data related to the subject of an aging
aerospace workforce, the aging U.S. manufacturing workforces, smart manufacturing,
31
emerging workforces, motivational forces, manufacturing leadership practices,
knowledge economy, knowledge management strategies, manufacturing strategies,
knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, knowledge retention,
organizational culture, corporate culture, knowledge sharing culture, multigenerational
workforces, Baby Boomers, complexity leadership theory, and effective leadership from
the ProQuest, InfoTrac, and EBSCOhost databases.
Smart Manufacturing
Smart manufacturing marries information, technology, and human integrity to
bring about a rapid revolution in the development and application of manufacturing
intelligence to every aspect of the business (Chad & Davis, 2014). According to Davis,
Edgar, Porter-DuPont, Bernaden, and Sarli (2012), “Smart manufacturing envisions the
enterprise that integrates the intelligence of the customer, its partners and the public” (p.
1). Smart manufacturing in the 21st century comes with a need for effective leaders with
the experience to create, build, and nurture a culture that supports and rewards novelty in
business. Companies are building “smart” factoring, the new ways of operating industrial
plants through the complex human-system interaction: the human being and integrated
technology (Chad & Davis, 2014). Smart manufacturing combines both critical
technologies and an experienced workforce to ensure and achieve a competitive
advantage.
Novelty. Knowledge is an enabler of innovation (Bogers & West, 2012).
Innovation depends upon the quality and availability of scientists, researchers, engineers,
and skilled labor (Deloitte, 2012c). Developing and attracting highly skilled researchers
and engineers affects the manufacturers’ ability to innovate and stay ahead of competition
32
(Katz, 2012). Companies will seek to (a) attract and keep highly skilled talent, and (b)
maintain and improve access to well-educated workers. Several authors argued that
organizational change is required to establish an appreciative, dynamic, novelty culture,
and a knowledge-management system to create, capture, transfer, and mobilize
knowledge of people and an organization (Blanchard, 1999; Bright, 2009; Haneberg,
2009; Soliman, 2011).
Motivating a workforce. Leaders play a key role in encouraging novelty,
fostering the right conditions for improvement, and creating an environment that enables
originality to flourish (Accenture, 2008; Ettlie & Rosenthal, 2012). Furthermore,
employees want to enjoy their work, be challenged by it, and achieve personal fulfillment
(Deloittee, 2009). For the originality to be sustainable, leaders should provide training on
workable techniques to all employees who wish it and encourage each of them to create
new products, services, and processes (Oster, 2010). Corporate leaders and managers
should nurture a culture that allows individuals to think imaginatively (Legrand & Weiss,
2011), in an environment in which long-term results are valued (Oster, 2010), with an
organizational climate that supports creative thinking (Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011).
Strong organizational cultures are good motivators that foster self-actualization through
the implementation of employee’s own ideas and an appreciation for the value of their
work.
A Germinal Overview of Motivational Forces in Organization
Between the 1940s and the 1960s, many theories emerged to explain the
complexities of social relations, all of which touched on the topic of motivation (Eagler
& Kusiak, 2011). Heider (1946) proposed the balance theory to explain that social
33
relations are either balanced or unbalanced. Lewin (1951) proposed the field theory,
which asserted that unmet psychological and physiological needs result in increasing
tension. The social comparison theory, introduced by Festinger (1954), stated that
humans are universally motivated. The expectancy theory, initially elaborated by Vroom
(1964), pointed out the connection between employees’ motivation at the workplace and
the certitude of their expectancies in the organization. Employees’ expectancies at the
workplace are accumulated by learning skills, operating tools, and applying techniques
on prior deliverance of the workload and knowledge derived from personal perceptions of
the causes of success and failure. Brehm (1966) stated in the reactance theory that
humans are motivated to react against perceived limitations to their freedom. Employees
are motivated by money to fulfill their basic survival needs, job enrichment, and
appreciation.
A Current Overview of Motivational Forces in Organization
Theoretical paradigm shift. By the end of the 20th century, a complex theory
emerged to explain the transitional and restructuring processes. In a study by Ilinitch,
Aveni, and Lewin (1996), the authors argued that the old and stable oligopolies of
organizational forms that defined competition during the 20th centuries were changing
and rapidly restructuring. Ilinitch et al. (1996) stated that globalization and hyper-
competition are forces of change that reshape the competitive landscape in the United
States and worldwide. A major theoretical paradigm shift occurred in the theoretical
framework of complex organizational forms that addressed hyper-competitive
environments: organizations must combine integration, differentiation, and fragmentation
(Ilinitch et al., 1996). The emerging phenomenon of hyper-competition required a new
34
organization theory that was different from views on creative destruction, revolutionary
change, perfect competition, and chaos (Ilinitch et al., 1996). Ilinitch et al. (1996)
indicated that the organizational system is complex and requires an understanding of the
company’s capabilities for knowledge creation, flexibility, adaptivity, and
behavioral/cultural changes. In summary, the authors argued for a new language, a new
organizational design, and a paradigm shift in established strategy theories. The
organizational design required elements of flexibility and knowledge creation, which
were crucial to organizational performance in hypercompetitive markets (Ilinitch et al.,
1996).
Choice theory. According to Schoo (2008), choice theory assumed that good
relationships were at the core of mental health and happiness among employees. Schoo
also described the leader’s role in creating an organizational environment in which
employees feel safe, relaxed, and interested. Schoo (2008) went on to note that the
motive to change, the capacity for change, a clear and shared vision, and actionable steps
were needed in planning organizational changes. The leaders who use choice theory do
the following: (a) foster confidence in others, (b) recognize the input of others, (c)
recognize the needs of others, (d) create a positive work environment, and (e) cultivate a
healthy work climate and culture (Schoo, 2008).
According to Honore (2009), the key to motivating others is using the right
method for each individual. Fisher (2009) explored motivational theories and described
differences in motivational theories by dividing them into content theories, which
included physiology, security, social, ego, self-actualization, hygiene, power, affiliation,
achievement, and process theories. According to Fisher (2009), the most well-known
35
theory is a hierarchy of needs developed by Maslow. Fisher (2009) argued that the
interactions between needs, behaviors, and rewards were included in the process theories
and that a leader’s task was to motivate employees to have the desire to achieve unmet
needs on a premise that “once a need is satisfied it is no longer a motivator” (p. 351).
Fisher (2009) concluded that it was critical to develop a leadership style to inspire
employees to motivation.
Complexity theory. According to Hazy, Goldstein, and Lichtenstein (2007),
organization systems are complex in their interactions between internal and external
elements. Organizational complexity refers to a high degree of systematic
interdependency, non-linearity, and emergent order creation (Hazy et al., 2007). Wilson
(2009) argued that the complexity theory emerged during the 1980s and offered a new
lens through which to view the world. Studying the organization as a whole system was
required; the complexity theory refers to the study of complex system-patterns and
relationships among the parts of an organizational system and its nonlinear characteristics
with the ability to adapt to changes (Wilson, 2009).
Pepper (2003) stated that the most current developments in complexity science
pointed to new styles of leadership. A complex theory redefines the relationship between
leaders and followers (Pepper, 2003). Pepper (2003) argued that leaders have a lack of
knowledge in leading knowledge workers using control mechanics as an operator
controls machines. Lefter et al. (2009) and McCrae (2011) argued that Maslow's theory
had a great influence on organizations, but they criticized the theory for its rigidity.
Lefter et al. (2009) noted that different people who work in the organizations may have
36
different priorities. Employees within the boundaries of the organization are motivated
for different reasons (Frick, 2011; Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
In a study by Frick (2011), the author stated that knowledge worker motivation is
influenced by: (a) positive factors – meaningful work and belief in a mission and (b)
negative factors – insufficient resources and bad managers. Yuan and Woodman (2010)
concluded that knowledgeable employees enjoy a reputation for being innovative, having
high self-esteem, and being able to “make a meaningful contribution to performance and
work efficiency” (p. 329). A new set of leadership skills are needed to lead and manage
independent-minded knowledge workers whose credentials include being highly
educated, highly-skilled, self-managed, self-motivated, and innovative (Frick, 2011;
Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
Five-Factor theory. McCrae (2011) argued that the classic personality theories
of Jung, Maslow, and Hoeney are outdated and “have little to do with contemporary
personality psychology” (p. 209). McCrae (2011) noted that the five-factor theory
personality system has a strong base to explain the operation of the personality system.
The five-factor theory considers characteristic adaptations, including attitudes, beliefs,
habits, relationships, roles, skills, and self-control (McCrae, 2011). The personality
function has pathways mediated by the dynamic processes of the core and interfacing
components (McCrae, 2011). McCrae (2011) noted that basic tendencies, characteristic
adaptations, and self-concepts are the core components, and the interfacing components
are formed by objective biographies, external influences, and biological bases. McCrae
(2011) argued that external influences are limited to inputs of basic tendencies, based
directly on the structure and functioning of the brain of a person.
37
The author indicated that personal adaptation to changes in a cultural environment
takes place through the processing of the newest information (McCrae, 2011). A process
of cultural adaptation includes the flow of information from both components of the
external influences (surrounding cultural norms and daily life events) and basic
tendencies (agreeableness, conscientiousness extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) to
characteristic adaptations (personal striving and attitudes) (McCrae, 2011). The five-
factor theory personality system provides insight into a person’s mobility, personality,
and ability to adapt to the cultural environment (McCrae, 2011).
Chaos theory. Tetembaum and Laurence (2011) argued that advances in
technology during the 20th century accelerated changes in organizational structures.
Building innovative cultures and creating advancing knowledge management systems are
required in the transition to a new paradigm of chaos and disequilibrium in organizational
structures (Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011). Chaos was described as a complex,
unpredictable, and disordered pattern of behavior (Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011). A
new paradigm emerged for organizational structures that entailed radical changes in
leadership (Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011). Researchers noted that the shifting paradigm
called for changes in information sharing, knowledge growth, creativity, diversity, and
innovation (Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011). A new view of leadership was required; the
leader’s task is to create disequilibrium and engage the full knowledge and abilities of all
the followers (Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011). Tetembaum and Laurence (2011)
concluded that the chaos model describes the role of the leader as a facilitator who
disturbs disequilibrium, encourages conflict, guides the conversation, and negotiates until
the best solution is acceptable.
38
Wheatley (2006) noted that order could emerge out of chaos because chaos is the
critical process in the renewal and revitalization of natural systems. Those two forces –
order and chaos – are interrelated and known as mirror-image forces that control the
process of change, progress, and times of disorder (Wheatley, 2006). “Chaos is
necessary for new creative ordering” (Wheatley, 2006, p. 13). A paradigm shift is
required in leadership theories pertaining to the complexity of relationships within an
organizational system’s effects on leader success and performance (Wheatley, 2006).
The author argued that leadership requires: (a) re-orientation toward systems thinking and
(b) that leaders see themselves as explorers with open curiosity (Wheatley, 2006).
Arena (2009) noted that organizational change from a complexity science
required a large group intervention. The large group intervention models are suited for
dealing with complexity (Arena, 2009). Arena (2009) argued that a radical change across
the whole system at the edge of chaos is needed to transform an organization. According
to Arena (2009), when the system extends beyond the comfort zone of equilibrium, a new
order begins to emerge. The large group innovations can enhance an organization’s
potential for emergent radical change and lead to an embrace of complexity,
unpredictability, and turbulence in organizations (Arena, 2009). Arena (2009) concluded
that the goal of shifting the leadership role is to create an environment of cooperation,
open-mindedness, urgency, variety, and information sharing.
Motivated employee. Explaining what motivates employees to generate creative
ideas in the workplace, Yuan and Woodman (2010) suggested the importance of expected
job performance and image among employees. The authors stated that employees may
engage in novelty behaviors to improve their image and to appear competent and
39
conscientious (Yuan & Woodman, 2010). Creative employees’ needs are positive social
recognition and constant self-views as a creative workforce (Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
A study by Kanfer (2009) suggested that motivated employees and employee well-being
in the workplace determine organizational success. To increase work motivation, the
leaders’ approach is to enhance personal well-being of their staff through employee
development (Kanfer, 2009). Furthermore, Ailin and Lindgren (2008) concluded that
developing and attracting highly skilled employees is the core of the innovation process
in organizations. Organizational leadership that develops an effective strategy focused on
people is required (Ailin & Lindgren, 2008; Arena, 2009; Kanfer, 2009; McCrae, 2011;
Tetembaum & Laurence, 2011; Yuan & Woodman, 2010).
Organizational Culture
The foundation of an organization’s culture is formed by types of perceptions,
trust, and behaviors in the leader-follower relationship (Brocato, Jelen, Schmidt, & Gold,
2011; Mosley & Patrick, 2011). The meanings inherent in actions, procedures, and
protocols of organizational commerce and disclosure are characteristics of organizational
culture (Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008). An organizational culture includes
assumptions, premises, norms, beliefs, patterns of behaviors, and values that
organizational members share and express in the workplace (Makins et al., 2012; Pervaiz,
1998; Ramthun & Matkin, 2012).
Culture has a positive effect on creativity in organizations by changing
employees’ behaviors (Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Sarros et al., 2008). Yuan and
Woodman (2010) suggested that organizational support and job requirements are two
areas to focus on to reduce the risks associated with novelty behavior. Legrand and
40
Weiss (2011) noted that if a culture supports novelty behaviors, new ideas and creative
contributions from employees can occur systematically. Organic growth necessitates the
creation of a culture of novelty to drive change in people’s thoughts and behaviors
(Gupta, 2011; Oster, 2010; Tetenbaum & Laurence, 2011).
Bate, Khan, and Pye (2000) outlined a general method of culturally sensitive
restructuring for leading a major change in the organization. As noted by Bate et al.
(2000), changes in assumptions about the relationship between structure and culture are
required. Baxter et al. (2009) concluded that an organization needs to adapt to structural
changes, and the social groups within the organization must be developed both
cognitively and socially. Singh (2011) posited that the roles of structure and culture have
prime importance in organizational capacity to (a) efficiently exploit existing knowledge
and (b) explore new ideas that could give rise to new processes, products, and services.
Corporate culture differentiates an organization from competitors and affects
leadership’s ability to shape strategy, processes, and structures (Mahrokian et al., 2010).
Corporate culture takes time to develop, and leader commitment is required to
communicate with employees for building and managing a strong corporate culture
(Mahrokian et al., 2010). Zheng (2009) proposed that the organization’s amount and type
of innovation depend on organizational culture and leadership support. Encouraging
employees to generate creative ideas, providing support, assessing issues, and removing
any barriers that obstruct innovation require leadership that cultivates innovation as part
of organizational culture (Zheng, 2009).
Chukwuemeka (2012) assessed the organizational culture according to four
dimensions: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy cultures. Each culture is unique in
41
the organization. Clan culture depends on teamwork, adhocracy culture supports
innovativeness, market culture places the emphasis on profitability, and hierarchy culture
is more concerned with procedure (Chukwuemeka, 2012). A significant implication of
this study of leadership is the need to evaluate the social dimensions of the organization,
identify the dominant culture, and articulate an appropriate communication strategy that
will support performance improvement measures (Chukwuemeka, 2012, p. 119).
Organizations should assess their cultures to ascertain the dominant cultures present
within them (Chukwuemeka, 2012).
Inabinett (2010) argued that changes in leadership have an effect on
organizational culture, and the turnover of the employees has an effect on organizational
performance. Inabinett (2010) also suggested that economic issues in society affect
individuals’ ability to change positions in the workplace or take advantage of work
opportunities and concluded that a similar study may yield different conclusions,
“resulting in a stronger correlation of matching organizational culture to individual values
to employee tenure” (p. 98). A study by Jo (2010) concluded that employees’
commitment and turnover are affected by organizational learning culture. Jo (2010)
recommended further research to study leadership attributes in transformational,
coaching, and mentoring skills.
Corporate culture. Dahler-Larsen (1994) mentioned that the classical
sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) provided a heuristic contrast of corporate
culture with assumptions about humans, organizations, and societies. Dahler-Larsen
(1994) stated that an organizational performance is the main area of interest in corporate
culture. According to Dahler-Larsen (1994), individuals within an organization are
42
emotional, with needs to belong to a collectivity, and tend to associate positively with
corporate culture-related symbols. Wilhelm (1992) believed that the strengths and
competitive advantages of the existing corporate culture may be enhanced by changing
employee behavior, but argued that the leader’s role is to define corporate strategy before
any change in employee behavior is attempted. Furthermore, the development process
takes three to ten years and requires constant and massive reinforcement by leadership
(Wilhelm, 1992). The leaders’ priorities in this process are communication of the
corporate vision, strategy, and values, and any opportunity to broaden knowledge and
skills in employees is an example of effective reinforcement for behavioral change
(Wilhelm, 1992).
According to Schultz and Risberg (1992), the rise of corporate culture in the
1980s has been characterized by an intensive copying of “the culture of the spirit of the
time” (p. 25). The authors argued that the uniqueness of the individual organization and
the remnants of originality were removed by the conscious development of corporate
culture in the 1980s (Schultz & Risberg, 1992). Corporate culture has advanced in leaps
through “the movements of the spirit of the times” (Schultz & Risberg, 1992, pp. 28-29),
engaging areas such as excellence, efficiency, service, quality, and the importance of
human resources, internal competition, communication, flexibility, and
internationalization. Schultz and Risberg (1992) claimed that communication of cultural
images has become the most important resource in the organization: “Concepts for
corporate identity, design programs, cascades of communication, musical statements, and
glamorous ceremonies are the 1980s’ attempts to keep the members of the organization
seductively embraced by the corporate culture” (p. 29). In a comparison study of national
43
values, Hofstede (1984) noted that the United States was the single most individualistic
country of all 50 nations in 1980. Hofstede (1984) stated that the strength of
individualistic orientation in the United States relied on class, ethnic, and gender
differences. Hofstede (1980) suggested that an organization with a large power distance
culture creates an environment in which subordinates feel more comfortable with
superior, “who is real autocrat” (p. 57).
Furthermore, Kanter (1983) pointed out that the building blocks of corporate
changes are strategic decisions, crises or galvanizing events, individual prime movers,
action vehicles, a departure from tradition, and a desire for novelty. According to Kanter
(1983), leaders have to demonstrate a desire for change and should continually support,
push, reinforce, and lead the change process. “Empowering champions are one way that
leaders solidify their commitment to a new strategy” (Kanter, 1983, p. 23). Kanter
(1983) stated that the job of prime movers involves pushing a new strategy and changing
the organizational culture and direction. To change an organizational culture requires a
few clear signals, as well as the manipulation of symbols to indicate a commitment to a
new strategy, reports about the process, the agendas of staff meetings, and the places
where key events are held (Kanter, 1983).
Carol (1986) argued that a leader’s goals and values are communicated through
the components of a corporation’s culture to encourage employees to increase loyalty and
embrace and accept them. The authors stated that beliefs, ideologies, languages, rituals,
and myths were the components of a corporation culture (Carol, 1986). The method of
control in organizational leadership is the corporate culture (Carol, 1986). Carol (1986)
argued that “while individuals may become more enthusiastic, productive and committed
44
to the corporation, they will, at the same time, be laboring in collective ways and sharing
collective values” within the control of the corporate culture (p. 295). Carol (1986) drew
a parallel between the notion of shared values and a sense of collectivity in the concept of
the corporate culture.
Dahler-Larsen (1994) stated that corporate culture can be studied as a reaction to
the crisis of competitiveness, organization theory, and meaning and orientation in society.
Dahler-Larsen (1994) argued that the crisis in competitiveness motivated organizational
developers to find innovative methods and techniques to improve innovation processes
and organizational performance. According to Dahler-Larsen (1994), multinational
organizations are affected by cultural factors that are determinants of relative competitive
advantages in the multinational characteristics of complex problems of competitiveness.
Dahler-Larsen (1994) pointed out that corporate culture theories provide a reaction to a
crisis in organization theory. The author argued that a cultural model of an organization,
taking into account multi-brain properties of human systems, is needed for complex
organizations (Dahler-Larsen, 1994). Dahler-Larsen (1994) noted that the demand for
complexity models to change rational and mechanical views of people was criticized with
the purpose for an alternative vision. An organization with a corporate culture that
leaders focus on is no longer an organizational structure; therefore, leaders must
concentrate on shared meanings, thereby retaining cultural phenomena in the
organization (Dahler-Larsen, 1994).
Furthermore, Dahler-Larsen (1994) argued that organizational theories are
incapable of describing how organizations perform in an environment of complexity, and
criticized theories for their limitations in seeing the employees as rational and mechanical
45
prisms for viewing the organization. Dahler-Larsen (1994) stated that a deeper crisis of
meaning and orientation in society is a discourse for corporate culture. Dahler-Larsen
(1994) concluded that, “The final question is whether corporate cultures can turn outward
in order to become part of a society” (p. 15). As a part of the crisis concerning society’s
lack of image, corporate culture becomes part of social life, with adaptations for
environmental changes. Rather than becoming the meaning of work in modern
organizational life, corporate culture adapts to societal practices of organizational life.
The author concluded that societal images of traditional work ethics have changed, as
well as employees’ reasons for working (Dahler-Larsen, 1994).
In the study entitled Postmodern Pictures of Culture, Schultz and Risberg (1992)
stated that, “The concept of culture has been opposition to the dominant rational,
mechanical, and desolated organizational theory” (p. 15). According to Schultz and
Risberg (1992), postmodernism captures the paradox of corporate culture, reiteration
being in the form of diversity and individuality. Schultz and Risberg (1992) provided a
detailed analysis of the tensions between a modernist and a postmodernist perception of
corporate culture. The authors concluded that cultural tensions may lead to the notion
that culture is two-faced. A modernist vision of corporate culture is one that regulates,
limits, and directs the actions of organizational members by serving as a frame of
reference for meaning. A postmodernist understanding of corporate culture seems to
license individuals and groups to act autonomously and spontaneously in “the seductive
game of cultural forms, free of the tight webs of meaning” (Schultz & Risberg, 1992, p.
32). Schultz and Risberg (1992) concluded that postmodernism has challenged three key
46
modern assumptions in the grand narratives about: (a) deep meaning, (b) distinct cultural
identity, and (c) enactment of meaningful behavior.
Several researchers have noted that an organizational asset consists of the
employees in a company (Ahmed, 1998; Knilans, 2008). More attention is being devoted
to organizational employees and their development in learning leadership skills, creative
thinking, taking risks, openness to others’ ideas, empowerment, and intercultural
competencies (Brocato et al., 2011; Lloyd & Hartel, 2010; Ramthun & Matkin, 2012).
Knilans (2008) argued that the organization’s performance improved by providing a
comprehensive wellness plan for employees in areas of emotional, mental, physical,
intellectual, and financial health. The author concluded that taking care of the employees
has a positive effect on organizational performance and benefits the organization in the
competitive marketplace (Knilans, 2008).
The cultural integration process. Beard and Zuniga (2006) advanced the idea
that the integration of two cultures needs time to identify, plan, and execute. The authors
stated that culture is the performance of employees and they argued that strong cultures
showed stronger employee commitment. According to Beard and Zuniga (2006),
leadership skills along with culture merging and integration, play important roles in the
organization. A person, who establishes open communication, empowers employees, and
delegates’ authority has stronger leadership skills (Beard & Zuniga, 2006).
Warrick (2009) discussed the problem of developing organization change
champions. The author pointed out that leaders play three roles as change champions: (a)
initiating the change process, (b) facilitating the change process, and (c) actively
participating in implementing change. The initiating role requires skills in developing a
47
change mindset; the leader must provide vision, direction, and inspiration (Warrick,
2009). The facilitating role of the leader involves working with people, teams, and
networking (Warrick, 2009). Implementing change in the organization requires a leader
who can plan the change process, keep people focused, motivate others, evaluate
progress, and monitor progress until the change succeeds (Warrick, 2009). The success
of a change champion program is determined by the availability of tools, methods, and
strategies, all of which should be tailored to the culture of the organization (Warrick,
2009).
In the last few years, studies revealed that many leaders mistakenly view the
change in culture as an intellectual exercise (Haudan, 2011). A real cultural change
requires behavioral and emotional engagement for a whole organization (Haudan, 2011).
A new culture of candor, speed, collaboration, and integration is the result of the leader’s
role in building the new desired culture (Haudan, 2011). According to Haudan (2011),
leaders are at the leading edge of building cultures in organizations. The author posited
that the three steps required to change the culture in an organization were leadership team
talks, the setting of behavioral ground rules, and the recognition that errors are acceptable
(Haudan, 2011).
In a study by Christopian (2008), the author concluded that in the mediating effect
of organizational culture in the aerospace industry relates to strategic management
initiatives in knowledge management. Organizational culture may yield an inordinate
influence over changes within the organization, particularly for new business strategies
(Christopian, 2008). Researchers raised questions about the effectiveness of
organizational culture (Beard & Zuniga, 2006; Chatman & Cha, 2003; Jaruselski &
48
Katzenbach, 2012). Leadership support is required to assess organizational culture,
verify the reason for cultural clashes, and lead the process of cultural changes (Beard &
Zuniga, 2006). Chatman and Cha (2003) concluded that most effective organizational
cultures are strong, strategically relevant, and emphasize innovation and development.
The authors argued that the organizational process of changing culture depends on the
leader’s ability to select, recruit, train, socialize, orient, reward, and lead people
(Chatman & Cha, 2003; Jaruselski & Katzenbach, 2012).
Organizational climate. The multigenerational workforce in the aerospace
industry is undergoing a revolution in human capital. To increase attraction and retention
of a multigenerational workforce, a creative climate is needed to foster knowledge-
sharing behavior and transfer knowledge across organizational borders. Leaders and
managers should have the skills and knowledge to develop a climate supporting an
environment that demands creativity, agility, and openness to new ideas (Hamer, 2010;
O’Dell & Hubert, 2011). A study by Dagupta and Dodge (2010) pointed out that 60% of
executives have a lack of confidence in their ability to create a culture that encourages
entrepreneurial mindsets among leaders. A business needs knowledgeable leaders to
create a knowledge-sharing culture and a collaborative environment, where employees
work together toward a common goal and freely create, share, and use information
(O’Dell & Hubert, 2011).
Knowledge-sharing culture. Taylor (2013) argued that a knowledge-sharing
culture involves managing, sharing, and employing information and knowledge. In
managing the knowledge management system, the culture of knowledge sharing plays an
important factor in motivating the knowledge workers to participate (Christopian, 2008;
49
Taylor, 2013). Wang and Noe (2010) noted that employees perceive knowledge sharing
as a learning opportunity to deepen the personal understanding of the subject and to
unlock personal capability. Several authors suggested that the transfer of complex
knowledge required the employee’s motivation to participate; the cultural openness needs
to be genuine and visible, and shift towards embracing change and risk-taking as a norm
(Chatman & Cha, 2003; Hamer, 2010; Traitler et al., 2011). Furthermore, the workplace
with a knowledge-sharing culture created through leadership practices encourages trust,
open communication, creative thinking, novel ideas, cooperation, and collaboration.
Open innovation. Traitler et al. (2011) warned that a full adaptation of open
innovation is not straightforward, and it remains a struggle for some industrial
companies. Creamer and Amaria’s (2011) study of 40 executives further defined a
critical factor of business success. The authors pointed out that organizational culture
and organizational leadership are critical factors when implementing the strategy of an
open model for collaboration and innovation. Creamer and Amaria (2012) and
Srinivasan (2010) suggested that leadership practice in an open approach leads to
organizational sustainability and open innovation. Chelsbrough (2012) concluded that
the innovative process affects organizational effectiveness by combining the internal and
external knowledge of an organization. The open innovation model promotes innovative
thinking for creative work of the members of organizations, and the model relies on the
business network partners to identify current trends, spot future opportunities, and
develop the newest organizational models for environmental changes (Creamer &
Amaria, 2012; Chelsbrough, 2012).
50
Learning culture. Nelson and McCann (2010) noted that an organizational
culture has a deciding factor in employee retention in the workplace. Organizational
dysfunction is the failure of the people in the organization to learn effectively (Andreadis,
2009). A leader’s role is in the cultivation of a learning culture that encourages employee
inquisitiveness, creativity, learning from error, openness to sharing knowledge,
collaboration, and colleague support (Nelson & McCann, 2010). Knowledge
management strategies that foster a learning-orientation culture affect the retention of
knowledge workers and their engagement in knowledge creation, acquisition, capture,
sharing, and retention (Nelson & McCann, 2010). Several studies concluded that
valuable learning is achieved when the culture consistently encourages unconventional
ideas, reinforces behavioral change, instills a sense of ownership, and conduct small
experiments (Heskett et al., 2008; Katzenbach et al., 2012; Oster, 2010; Wilhelm, 1992).
Flexible culture. In the study by Eversole, Venneberg, and Crowder (2012), the
authors argued that the multigenerational workforce attracted and retained employees in
the workplace through a cultural change in the organization. A lack of leadership
commitment and support for work-life flexibility options for employees presents a
cultural challenge. Workplace flexibility is a key requirement for developing a culture
that includes (a) flexible work schedules, (b) part-time, (c) working remotely, (d) job
sharing, and (e) phased retirement programs (Eversole et al., 2012). Eversole et al.
(2012) concluded that providing flexibility to workers is related to attracting and
retaining top talent and the organization’s competitiveness capabilities.
51
The U.S. Manufacturing in a Knowledge-Based Economy
In 2011, the U.S. aerospace industry contributed $86 billion in export sales to the
U.S. economy (SelectUSA, 2013). The aerospace industry directly employs about
500,000 workers in scientific and technical jobs (SelectUSA, 2013). Epstein and Crown
(2008) stated that Boeing is a company with orders at more than $66 billion, stays
competitive because of globalization, and international contractors’ supply is 60% of all
commercial components. The operations of aircraft manufacturers are affected by
globalization in terms of organizational complexity, environment dynamics, and the
globalization of their markets (IBM Corporation, 2012). Complexity in aircraft design
requires enhanced collaboration and interconnectivity across engineering disciplines,
working with business partners to optimize performance, affordability, and production
process (IBM Corporation, 2012; SelectUSA, 2013).
Siegwart and Foss (2011) proposed that adaptive, intelligent, and interdependent
business efforts increased in the knowledge economy. According to Austin et al. (2008),
businesses in the knowledge economy need a process that supports employees as they
convert their own knowledge into a form that can be shared with others. Austin et al.
(2008) argued that knowledge sharing promotes creativity and novelty because
employees collaborate and circulate new ideas. Successful businesses routinely create
new knowledge by identifying core business competencies (Austin et al., 2008; Vrincianu
et al., 2009). The new knowledge economy requires a manufacturing culture that can
survive in a continuously changing environment, which presents a new and challenging
reality for organizational leadership.
52
The challenges of the manufacturing industry are: (a) attracting fresh talent out of
college and (b) ensuring that operational knowledge is captured and transferred to the
generation of digital natives effectively (Davidson, 2013). The currently emerging
workforce sees the industry as outdated, and the dirty manufacturing career as based on
the social perception of the environment in the workplace. Divakaran et al. (2012) raised
concerns over the lack of qualified young people entering the manufacturing sector and
the need to identify best practices in attracting, motivating, and retaining talent.
Several effects of these challenges for the aerospace industry in terms of both
economic and innovation costs have been proven by study authors: (a) looming shortfall
in tech-savvy workers, (b) loss of crucial knowledge due to Baby Boomer exodus, (c)
lack of a knowledge-transfer program/process/strategy, (d) lack of leadership support in
building a knowledge sharing culture, and (e) barriers in the strategic initiatives for
knowledge management (Christopian, 2008; Deloris, 2013; McNichols, 2008; Nort,
2003).
Aging aerospace workforce. In 2012, nearly 60% of the workforce in the
aerospace industry was aged above 45 years, and 20% were aged 55 to 64 (American
Visa Bureau, 2013). Talent management is a competitive priority for organizations with
the aging workforces (Calo, 2008). Tolbize (2008) summarized that companies in which
workers feel valued, recognized, appreciated, and supported may have higher retention
rates. The manufacturing industry needs to attract the younger generation at higher rates
to replace an aging workforce, because retiring skilled workers take a lifetime’s worth of
knowledge of best practices and operational experience with them.
53
Baby Boomer brain drain. An organization needs to maintain a relationship
with and effectively leverage its retiree population to combat the associated brain drain as
they lose this critical workforce segment. Multifaceted strategies are needed to
encourage those approaching retirement age to engage in new ways, retaining employees
with critical skills, knowledge, and relationships (Bragg, 2011). The aerospace industry
may implement a phased retirement program that allows the company to retain qualified,
productive, experienced, and loyal employees longer. Knowledge capture – i.e.,
documentation of tacit knowledge, expert debriefings, field notes, lessons learned,
personal conversations, and story-telling – plays an important role in ensuring that
operational and industrial know-how is not lost when employees retire.
Multigenerational workforce. Green (2007) claimed that demographic changes
within the workforce in 21st-century companies are creating business growth pains. An
emergent workforce in the 21st century has the characteristics of a new generation that
crosses age groups, genders, race, and geography (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009;
West, 2007). The composition of the U.S. labor force is culturally diverse and
continually changing (Country Commerce, 2011; McCuiston, Wooldridge, & Pierce,
2004).
Recent studies revealed that the Baby Boomer (1946–1964) and the Greatest
Generations (1922–1945) are more work-focused, Generation X (1965–1979) and Y
(1980–1995) are more family-focused, and Generation Z (born after 1995) prefers
independent choices (Gratton, 2011; Green, 2007; Green & Roberts, 2012; Katzenbach et
al., 2012). Companies potentially have five distinct generations in the workplace,
creating potential for inter-generational conflict (Gratton, 2011). Authors stated that the
54
coexistence of multigenerational workforces in the workplace is the first time in
American history (Green & Roberts, 2012). Green and Roberts (2012) argued that those
demographic changes in workforces within the 21st century indicate that younger
generations possess more postmodern values.
The emergent workforces are a new generation motivated to perform in their
company with the values of postmodernism and a new set of role expectations (Gratton,
2011; Green, 2007; Katzenbach et al., 2012). Studies indicated that the cultural value
shift among multigenerational and multicultural workforces concerns their priorities
(Green, 2007; Katzenbach et al., 2012). Gratton (2011) noted that typically, Generations
Z and Y employees stay connected by using social-media systems to build interpersonal
networks. A desire of the Generation Y employees is to have a better life and work
balance. The goal of Generation X is to seek benefits for maternity and paternity leave,
and have quality time with children (Gratton, 2011). A study by Carter-Steward (2009)
suggested that Generation X and Generation Y employees believe leaders must be
flexible and adaptive in their management styles, finding this relevant to employee
willingness to perform designated tasks. Furthermore, leaders of such a
multigenerational workforce must be aware of and be sensitive to the variations between
the generations.
Green and Roberts (2012) noted that the Millennial Generation (1981-2000),
growing up in the Information Age, has a value-based lifestyle and is technologically
savvy, gender neutral, diverse, and confident about personal abilities. Grotton (2011)
argued that building deeper understanding among employees is critical to encourage
generations to share ideas in innovation. Ramthum and Matkin (2012) concluded that a
55
leader with intercultural competence and cultural intelligence may overcome the social
and relational challenges and effectively negotiate cultural differences. In a study of
1200 employees by Lloyd and Hartel (2010), the authors concluded that intercultural
competence is validated by a range of knowledge, skills, and actions that facilitate
positive interaction among culturally diverse individuals. The leader role works with an
emergent workforce that is smart, multicultural, multigenerational, knowledgeable,
mobile, and intelligent (Gratton, 2011; Green & Roberts, 2012; Lloyd & Hartel, 2010;
Ramthum & Matkin, 2012; West, 2007).
Green (2008) argued that organizational values are challenged by postmodern
values in the emergent workforces. Green (2008) stated that the conflict in organizations
arises because an emergent workforce operates in a postmodern culture; modern culture
prevails in many businesses. Postmodernism is multicultural and promotes social
tolerance (Green, 2007; Green & Roberts, 2012). According to Green (2007), the
premise that corporate values influence employee behavior is rejected by postmodernism.
Therefore, the author suggested that a paradigm shift occurs in organizational leadership
under continual postmodern influences (Green, 2007). However, the author concluded
that organizations are often complex in the postmodern age (Green, 2007).
Loss of knowledge capital. Critical and strategic knowledge is tacit and
embedded in the minds of knowledge workers. The aging aerospace workforce is nearing
retirement: a phenomena in the industry that may lead to knowledge “crash,” “drain,”
“bleed effect,” or “void” – the risk of losing a massive amount of strategic and critical
knowledge (Bragg, 2011; Gonzaga, 2009; Martin, 2013; McNichols, 2008; Nelson &
McCann, 2010; Siemens, 2007). Management strategies are needed in the aerospace
56
industry to retain organizational wisdom from retiring workers. Knowledge loss leads to
reduced efficiency, costly errors, decreased innovation, and compromised growth
strategies. One of the most important business needs for the aerospace knowledge
management team is the retention of knowledge and experience when employees are
abandoning their position (Bragg, 2011; Haider, 2009; Henard & McFadyen, 2008).
Knowledge management strategies. The complexities associated with
transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge and the ability to assess a person’s
personal knowledge remain among the biggest labor force-related challenges faced by the
aerospace industry (Bragg, 2011; Gonzaga, 2009; McNichols, 2008). Organizational
strategies to capture, store, and exchange knowledge are needed to ensure that knowledge
may be used to its full advantage by other workers (Bragg, 2011). Christopian (2008)
noted that the leader’s role is to create an environment that encourages people to take part
in the knowledge sharing process. Leadership strategy and management support are
needed for continuous re-engineering of knowledge management implementation to keep
up with the needs of the aerospace industry, retain an innovative business status, and
retain knowledge assets economically.
Nobre and Walker (2011) wrote that cognition of knowledge creation is a process
that sustains an organization’s competitive advantage. According to Henard and
McFadyen (2008), the employee that operates at the level of unique knowledge can use
the stock of acquired knowledge to further recognize, obtain, and integrate the newest
knowledge. Austin et al. (2008) argued that employees create information and acquire
the knowledge. Haider (2009) suggested that a company’s culture provides an
environment for sharing knowledge, and a knowledge management program within a
57
whole organization is needed. Haider (2009) stated that “respondents agreed that having
the ability to locate and use existing knowledge using knowledge maps was a crucial
aspect of a knowledge management program” (p. 83). They initiate the process of
sharing and exchanging among members of the organization to create new knowledge for
storing and reusing.
Boatman and Wellins (2011) provided a detailed analysis of succession
management systems as strategic planning. Authors posited that succession management
is less about the present than it is about the future (Boatman & Wellins, 2011). Boatman
and Wellins (2011) suggested that the focus of succession management is on ensuring
that organizations have the right quantity and quality of leaders at all levels to meet the
unpredictable business needs of the future. According to Honore (2009), to drive
organizational performance, motivated employees are needed for organizational survival.
Based on the results of a study, Edwards (2010) posited that the process of individual
novelty adoption requires an organization to foster creative thinking, generate novel
ideas, promote leadership development, develop leaders’ training that supports leadership
development, and facilitate a climate receptive to change.
Knowledge preservation. A complex work activity in the aerospace industry
consists of a workforce community of knowledge workers with diverse perceptions,
expertise, and experience. Leadership vision and management support are needed to
encourage and facilitate the formation of cross-functional teams within the workplace by
combining all generations in unlocking individual creativity and effective cross-
generational knowledge transfer. A study by Christopian (2008) posited that
implementation strategies are needed in introducing the knowledge management systems
58
into the business, to minimize resistance to change by individuals, groups, or teams. A
knowledge preservation process includes two stages: first, the codification that requires
creating a knowledge repository (documentation, exit-interview, de-briefing), and second,
the personalization that has internal (mentoring, community of practices, and
redundancy) and external parts (professional experts).
A recent study by Deloris (2013) concluded that the top barriers to knowledge
transfer among highly experienced engineers in the aerospace industry are (a) job security
and (b) schedule pressure. Managers are expected to provide leadership in developing a
culture of knowledge sharing (Deloris, 2013; McNichols, 2008). A study by McNichols
(2008) recommended further research and exploration of the connection between
knowledge transfer barriers and generational differences. A study by Bragg (2011)
suggested that future research look at the differences that gender can add to the transfer
of knowledge within the multigenerational workforce.
Knowledge sharing. Willingness to share personal knowledge with others
requires changing the culture of the organization. The leaders’ and managers’ roles are to
identify potential know-how knowledge gaps and assess the needs caused by possible
knowledge vacuums. The exodus of experienced baby boomers from the aerospace
industry workforce affects business performance, competitiveness, and the ability to
innovate (McNichols, 2008).
Knowledge transfer. Creation of new knowledge in an organization needs a
culture that supports open commutation and transfer of knowledge among
multigenerational employees (Bragg, 2011). Knowledgeable employees learn tacit
knowledge by working with tools, machines, and instruments. McNichols (2008)
59
advanced the notion that a generational gap impedes the flow of tacit knowledge from
Baby Boomers to Generation X engineers. The author concluded that a knowledge-
sharing culture is needed to implement the management strategies effectively and transfer
knowledge within the multigenerational workforce (McNichols, 2008).
Knowledge transfer requires both the sharing of knowledge by the knowledgeable
workforce and the acquisition and application of knowledge by the recipient (Wang &
Noe, 2009). McNichols (2010) stated that barriers exist in the knowledge transfer from
the Baby Boomers to Generation X aerospace engineers as a result of (a) budget
constraints, (b) heavy workload, and (c) financial pressures. The knowledge preservation
and transfer technique must be identified and then used to identify, capture, store, share,
apply, leverage, and possibly create a unique operational knowledge before an employee
leaves an organization.
Knowledge exchange. Knowledge exchange is retaining knowledge, exchanging
know-how, and ensuring a smooth start for a successor. Knowledge exchange occurs
only when there is a culture of mutual respect and trust. A multigenerational workforce
in the aerospace industry depends on (a) the development of knowledge process and (b)
flows for a purposeful knowledge exchange.
Knowledge retention. In the face of higher product complexity, the aerospace
manufacturing industry is challenged to leverage the workforce’s knowledge, skills, and
competencies in a non-linear relationship. Knowledge retention includes policies and
processes for retaining organizational knowledge especially during times of
organizational development, business turbulence, and an aging workforce. Companies
must figure out how to retain or stay connected with retirees as they are valuable talent
60
pool and provide expansive business knowledge. Keeping retirees engaged with an
organization can provide invaluable knowledge transfer, mentoring, and contingent
resources. Knowledge retention practices include codification, validation, categorization,
storing, and retrieval.
Knowledge spillover. Knowledge spillovers from basic science have an
increasingly significant input into the manufacturing industry (Leonard & Waldman,
2007). Leonard and Waldman (2007) posited that the drivers of innovation in the U.S.
manufacturing sector include (a) business research and development, (b) capital
investment, (c) cutting-edge scientific output, and (d) the growth of the science and
engineering workforce. The aerospace industry is knowledge-intensive and has a cycling
nature whereby the operational knowledge flows within a whole set of members
consisting of trained engineers and scientists. The knowledge spillover from the
aerospace industry has a positive effect on forming an aerospace cluster within the
industry and innovative driven companies with cross-industry knowledge spillovers.
Organizational Leadership
Clawson (2006) believed that the Industrial Age leadership notions of command
and control were becoming absurdly out of date. Green and Roberts (2012) stated that
the characteristics of the postmodern leader are adaptability, spiritual-focus, tolerance for
ambiguity in life, accountability for actions, and the character of a life-long learner.
Schmidt (2006) posited that cynicism and pessimism about life characterize the emergent
workforce in a postmodern era. Schmidt (2006) noted that a chaotic situation may exist
in organizations in which the leaders ignore or dismiss the effect of cultural changes of an
emergent workforce. The leaders must be able to operate in an environment of
61
postmodernist values, leading employees with mindsets untrusting of corporate culture
(Schmidt, 2006).
Jones (2010) noted that the role of a leader is to create a culture that reinforces
the strategy it pursues and the structure it adopts. Kouzes and Posner (2007) observed
that leaders are the ambassadors for the shared values of their companies. Davis, Kee,
and Newcomer (2010) noted that leaders rely less on command and control and more on
collaboration within organizations. Hopen (2010) stated that organizational success is
dependent on the leader’s ability to encourage and support others’ efforts.
The role of organizational leaders changed when forces of the knowledge industry
ushered in the knowledge economy. In their study of 899 organizational leaders from the
four global regions – Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States – Perrin, Perrin,
Blauth, and Apthorp (2012) showed that leadership in the 21st century is challenged by
the global economy and leaders need renewed focus on skills for successful leadership.
According to Perrin et al. (2012), leadership trends and practices tend to emerge in the
United States and migrate to Asia and to Europe, as a long-term phenomenon.
Leadership in the 21st century requires that leaders engage in new thinking, excel in
skills of creativity, and invest in people development (Bel, 2010; Guillory et al., 2011;
Stempfle, 2011).
Quick, Macik-Frey, and Cooper (2007) suggested that a “healthy” leader is at the
heart of an organization’s health. Dalakoura (2010) provided insight into leadership
development, showing that an organization with a focus on leadership development has
greater improvement and performance. Houghton and Diliello (2010) suggested that a
leadership development is important for unlocking personal creativity in organizations.
62
Blanchard (1999) argued that leaders should keep an open mind, constantly change, be on
the lookout for new ideas, and experiment with improved ways of doing things.
Leadership development is a strategic investment in organizational development
(Chatman & Cha, 2003; Goncalves, 2012; Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012). A study of
over 2,600 companies in 74 countries, nearly 1,900 human resource (HR) professionals,
and 12,500 leaders conducted by Boatman and Wellins (2011) discovered that only 35%
of HR professionals reported a high level of the quality of leadership development that
was delivered to their leaders. Only 33% of the leaders feel they are getting value from
development they received (Boatman & Wellins, 2011). Boatman and Wellins (2011)
noted that leadership skills that can foster creativity and novelty are at the top of the list
of those needed for the future.
Tetenbaum and Laurence (2011) noted that the leaders’ tasks are to move
organizations from the model of stability and control to a model that engages the full
knowledge and capabilities of all the followers. Zeffane (2010) confirmed that effective
leaders are able to create, develop, and support an organizational climate of trust to
establish an environment for business success. Mohanta and Thooyamani (2010)
contended that effective leaders can create and develop an organizational environment to
develop individuals into becoming leaders. In a study by Kieu (2010), the author stated
that a leadership style affects employees’ job satisfaction and organizational
performance.
Several authors suggested that when the leadership style is employee-oriented,
innovative, participative, and transformational, it is especially effective (Kieu, 2010;
Tetenbaum & Laurence, 2011). Guillry et al. (2011) asserted that the age of
63
connectedness changes organizational behaviors and that power in the 21st century is
based on collaboration. The authors noted that the leader should model openness and
stability, build trust, develop the next generation of leaders, encourage team dynamics,
and engage people in nurturing a knowledge-sharing culture (Kieu, 2010; Mohanta &
Thooyamani, 2010; Schmidt, 2006; Stempfle, 2011; Tetenbaum & Laurence, 2011; Xu &
Thomas, 2011).
Leadership theory. West (2007) introduced a new theory, the Postmodern
Leadership Organization and Workforce Development (PLOW) theory, to describe
leaders’ and followers’ development in postmodern-era companies. In the PLOW theory
of multidimensional validation, components are “examinable through bodies of
knowledge such as social science, education, or learning theories” (West, 2007, p. 173).
West (2007) recommended that future research is needed to study the operational gap
between workforce development and human resource practices. Many researchers take
the position that leaders should invest in people development, improve the welfare of
others, and provide the institutional support required for ongoing change (Sousa &
Dierendonck, 2010; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Sverdlik & Oreg, 2009).
Several authors posited that leaders must be competent in systems thinking in the
context of leadership practices in organizations of the complex world (Laszlo, 2012;
Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Palaima and Skarzauskiene (2010) stated that the
general systems theory is distinguished by a framework of systems thinking, focusing on
contingency thought, and a confounding of leadership with management. High-
performing leaders are those whose mindsets are programmed for a field of the systems
thinking (Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Complexity in a system occurs from the
64
interaction of a system of variables. In the complexity of the 21st century business
environment, long-term competitive survival requires leaders to possess knowledge of the
synchronous process for an organization’s success and entails the interaction of three
variables: (a) purpose, (b) procedure, and (c) action guide. Complex system is an open
system, the energy flows to and from the system itself. An organizational leader needs
skills and knowledge in transforming the complex system into simple systems, reality of
environment in organizations of the aerospace industry. The leader’s role is to (a) deal
with its complexity, (b) keep open boundaries, and (c) keep conjunctions and the
inexistence of disjunctions.
Schreiber and Somers (2006) argued that factors influencing complexity include
(a) positive or self-reinforcing feedback loops, (b) negative or self-correcting feedback
loops, and (c) single and double loop learning. Furthermore, Palaima and Skarzauskiene
(2010) stated that understanding the principles of dynamic thinking, systems logic, and
process orientation will improve leadership performance. The use of these principles in
practice is essential for leadership (Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Laszlo (2012)
argued that the systems view is a rigorous way of looking at reality from a different
perspective to enable critical and creative perspectives, from which the idea for
innovation and new possibilities can emerge. System thinking requires thinking in terms
of processes, relationships, and interconnections (Laszlo, 2012).
Leadership practices in the manufacturing industry are non-linear within internal
and external systems of the organization. The need of the U.S. manufacturing industry in
the 21st century is for leaders and managers with mindsets for complex thinking and
ingenuity to create a knowledge sharing culture that supports the knowledge management
65
exchange within the multigenerational workforce. Authors noted that complexity
leadership theory describes a pathway for novelty, a notion that all members in the
organization act as leaders in each communication, respect diversity, and provide new
insights for leaders in the complex world of business (Lichtenthaler, 2011; Livingston &
Lusin, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Furthermore, Schreiber and Somers (2006) noted
that leadership involvement is critical for networking and building cross-functional
relationships. The aerospace industry is engaged in knowledge-intensive work, requiring
leaders and managers to have skills and knowledge to get the best from the knowledge
worker as a knowledge carrier. Leaders must recognize that the multigenerational
workforce has different goals, needs, and motivators.
Manufacturing leadership practices. In a study by McNichols (2008) titled
“Tacit Knowledge: An Examination of Intergenerational Knowledge Transfer within an
Aerospace Engineering Community,” the author suggested that neither Generation X nor
Baby Boomers considered generational differences a major impediment to knowledge
transfer. McNichols’ (2008) strongest argument is that leadership practice benefits from
formatting teams consisting of combinations of members of multigenerational
workforces. Pilla’s (2011) research further revealed that leaders, specifically in the
aerospace industry, gain the commitment of employees by providing state-of-the-art
information and communication technologies and by encouraging open innovation.
McCain (2010) performed a study to examine the relationship between leadership
practices and organizational culture within the aerospace industry. McCain (2010)
highlighted that leaders must be forward thinking and proactive toward changes in culture
to meet future expectations. Organizational leadership requires the leaders with skills
66
and experience to build a culture of sharing knowledge that equips workforces with
beliefs in entrepreneurship, creativity, novelty, ideas generations, and ingenuity in the
workplace.
Team environment. Several researchers noted that a management strategy is to
encourage, support, and facilitate the formation of teams with the multigenerational
workforce, combining members of multicultural workforces and functions whenever
possible (Dasgupta & Dodge, 2010; McNichols, 2010). Authors concluded that creating
training programs help foster teamwork between team members of different generations
(Dasgupta & Dodge, 2010; McNichols, 2010). The commitment of executives and senior
leaders is essential in order to create a culture of knowledge sharing that motivates
employees on both an individual and team level to convert their tacit knowledge into
explicit knowledge for storing, sharing, and reusing.
Future Aerospace Workforce
To keep companies innovative in the new knowledge economy, leaders must
effectively structure or restructure their businesses and implement sustained innovation
by forming teams with innovative leaders, empowering them to influence others (Bel,
2010; Mosley, 2010; Schermerhorn, 2011). Mohanta and Thooyamani (2010)
emphasized that the organizations’ strategic investment is in leadership development and
deployment of human capital. Frick (2011) stated that knowledge workers are “teachers,
lawyers, architects, physicians, nurses, engineers, and scientists and they are self-
managed and self-motivated” (p. 375). Nelson and McCann (2010) studied 500 senior
Human Resource professionals from the United States, Canada, and Europe and
described the talent wars predicted to result from the brain drain exit from organizations
67
and the leader’s role in the cultivation of a learning culture. Nelson and McCann (2010)
argued that a knowledge society in an organization is dependent upon the creation and
application of knowledge. Ellis (2005) provided a strong argument for the notion that
knowledge workers are increasingly unlikely to accept the bureaucratic methods of the
command-and-control culture that has served many giant companies well in the past.
Knowledge workers. Adams and Demaiter (2007) suggested that in the new
economy, the demand is for self-programmable workers who are flexible, adaptable, and
quick to retrain. In fact, the knowledge workers are pivotal change agents in
organizational development, by borrowing, adapting, and producing knowledge for
sustainable change management (Carleton, 2011; Nelson & McCann, 2010). Researchers
argue that knowledge workers enjoy interacting with others to create meaningful
cooperation and effective performance in an organization (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2010).
Effective leadership practices that create an organizational environment that supports
healthy communication and sharing knowledge help knowledge workers develop new
ideas, think creatively, and develop entrepreneurial skills (Sousa & Dierendonck, 2010).
The authors concluded that a knowledge-driven business and complex adaptive
organization require (a) effective leadership and (b) knowledgeable workers. Sousa and
Dierendonck’s (2010) strongest argument was that leadership practices should create a
meaningful and purposeful workplace in which knowledge workers are motivated for
creativity and novelty.
Knowledge-worker retention is highest in companies that establish a culture in
which novelty is achieved by empowering workers to capture and apply tacit knowledge.
The leaders should constantly reinforce an organizational climate within the
68
organizational culture that is conducive and open to change (Davis, Kee, & Newcomer,
2010). Interactions between leaders and followers are complex in intrapersonal, teams,
and groups, which characterize 21st-century business. The nature of 21st-century
leadership requires new thinking and leadership, given the dominance of the knowledge
worker (Boatman & Wellins, 2011; Dul, Ceylan, & Jaspers, 2011; Guillry et al., 2011;
Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011; Sousa & Dierendonck, 2010).
Gaps in the Literature
The knowledge gap between leaders and workers poses a challenge in leading the
emergent workforces (Darr, 2007). Although the literature addressing organizational
culture and knowledge management is voluminous, there are recent writings relative to
those about manufacturing leadership practices in managing an aging workforce or
fostering a knowledge-sharing culture. Crough (2012) provided insight into the
identification and influences of an organizational subculture on organizational outcomes.
The author recommended further study on subcultures within organizations and employee
engagement, novelty, and intentions to turnover (Crough, 2012). Kieu (2010) proposed a
new leadership model focusing on employee-oriented vision and organizational novelty.
Nort (2011) posited further study to explore the dimensions of organizational culture that
enable knowledge management processes, increase the speed of novelty, and enhance
firm performance. West (2007) advanced the notion that the workforce demographics of
businesses need an assessment of the postmodern workforce in relation to racial, cultural,
and language variables. Smith (2010) concluded that companies interested in using
innovative activities need leaders who can commit to change the culture, engage in
novelty, and tolerate the risks. Christopian (2008) posited further study to explore
69
motivating employees to commit to sharing their knowledge and new business strategies.
Martin (2013) recommended further research on developing a knowledge-sharing culture
and on knowledge transfer practices in the aerospace industry.
This study was designed to fill the gap in the literature. Several authors pointed
out the need for further study of organizational culture and subcultures, manufacturing
leadership practices, creative climate, employee values, leadership model, dimensions of
organizational culture, postmodern workforce, aerospace workforce crisis,
multigenerational workforce, and knowledge management strategies (Bragg, 2011;
Crough, 2012; Darr, 2007; Edwards, 2010; Inabinett, 2010; Martin, 2013; Nort, 2011;
West, 2007). The results of this research added to the body of knowledge relating to
organizational cultural challenges and provide insights to organizational leadership
practices in capturing the operational knowledge of an aging workforce in the
manufacturing industry, including the aerospace industry, in the era of the knowledge-
based economy.
Conclusion
A comprehensive review of the literature revealed that the relationship between
leaders and followers is an important factor to maintain the knowledge management
systems and to create a knowledge-sharing culture to succeed in the multigenerational,
knowledge-based economy. Katz (2012) stated that manufacturers cannot innovate
without highly skilled workers, and Gold (2012) stated that 80% of manufacturers are
experiencing a shortage of skilled production workers. Gold (2013) stated that
manufacturing remains a vital part of any plans for economic revitalization. Haudan
(2011) proposed a change in organizational culture by changing leader’s behaviors. The
70
review showed consensus about the leader’s role: it is to create and nurture a culture that
fosters novelty through the company (Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011; Jaruzelski &
Katzenbach, 2012; Mosley & Patrick, 2011; Oster, 2010). The companies of the 21st
century need leaders with skills to make the transition to a new paradigm of continuous
change in complexity of the business (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011; Joiner, 2009).
The leader’s role is to identify the behaviors and practices that must be changed
and then to establish a culture that is needed to succeed in a knowledge-based economy
(Gupta, 2009; Mohrman & Lawler, 2012). Joiner (2009) stated that to shift leadership
culture at the top requires new behavior in the leaders themselves. The literature review
confirmed the importance of the relationship between leaders and followers to encourage
engagement, expand organizational networks, build a knowledge-sharing culture, and
develop leadership to aid in retention of talent in the companies (Creth, 2000; Isaksen &
Akkermans, 2011; McEntire & Greene-Shortridge, 2011; Mohrman & Lawler, 2012;
Sousa & Dierendonck, 2010).
Summary
The literature review led to the conclusion that five major factors are conducive to
manufacturing leadership practices: (a) leadership and management support, (b)
organizational climate, (c) knowledge-sharing culture, (d) knowledge preservation
strategies, and (e) ingenuity of emergent workforces (Boatman & Wellins, 2011; Deloris,
2013; Jaruselski & Katzenbach, 2012; Frick, 2011; Sakkab, 2011; Soliman, 2011). A
literature review on a leader’s role in building a knowledge-sharing culture revealed a
strong need to explore the lived experiences of organizational leaders and managers
(Christopian, 2008; Deloris, 2013; Eagler & Kusiak, 2011; Hamer, 2010; Haneberg,
71
2009; Mercan & Goktas, 2011). Complex leadership theory and complex adaptive
system comprise a suitable model to create complex adaptive behavior (in leaders,
managers, and subordinates in the manufacturing industry) in an increasingly complex,
uncertain, and changing world.
A study of manufacturing leadership showed a lack of research on leadership
practices that impact the culture leading to an environment conducive to knowledge
sharing, knowledge preservation processes, and developing human resource strategies
focused on the aging workforce in the aerospace industry. Chapter 2 presented literature
on the need for manufacturing leadership practices to cultivate, grow, and nurture a
knowledge-sharing culture in the competitive world of a knowledge-based economy
consisting of multigenerational workforces.
Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the following topics: (a) method and
appropriateness of the study’s design; (b) details about the selected population, sampling,
interview protocol, informed consent and confidentiality, pilot study, and post-interview
reviews; and (c) a review of the data collection and procedures, data analysis, and data
reliability. The chapter also includes a description of the qualitative collective case
design and the methods used to investigate leadership practices in the manufacturing
industry.
72
Chapter 3
Method
This chapter outlines the foundational method best suited to answer the research
questions. The chapter includes an explanation of the qualitative research method used
to obtain new data regarding the knowledge and skills of organizational leaders and
managers who seek to improve knowledge preservation strategies and focus on the
knowledge workers as a key source for a globally competitive advantage. The chapter
also offers an explanation of the method’s appropriateness and the population and
sample selection. A qualitative collective case study approach was the best method and
approach for addressing the research question.
The broader purpose of the research study was to investigate leadership practices
that build and nurture (a) a knowledge-sharing culture and (b) knowledge preservation
strategies in the aerospace industry to mitigate the threat of losing operational knowledge
as aging generations retire. Leaders can use these practices to help innovation survive a
rapidly changing business environment and allow a smooth transfer of operational
knowledge within multigenerational workforces in manufacturing industries, such as the
aerospace industry. The focus of this study was the knowledge carriers – leaders,
managers, and subordinates – who can (a) resolve the knowledge gap; (b) develop a
competitive advantage by creating a knowledge-sharing culture; and (c) transform
manufacturing workers into technical, high-skilled production professionals by driving
multigenerational legacy knowledge in talented individuals.
This study involved careful design, properly conducted data collection, and
correct analysis to generate the latest knowledge. Chapter 3 includes an in-depth
73
discussion of the current research and includes the following sections: (a) research design
and design appropriateness, (b) population and sampling, (c) interview protocol, (d)
research questions, (e) informed consent, (f) confidentiality, (g) pilot test, (h) data
collection and procedures, (i) post-interview reviews, (j) data analysis, (k) reliability, and
(l) a summary.
Research Method and Design Appropriateness
The purpose of the qualitative collective case study was to examine a particular
phenomenon or experience deeply to build further knowledge in the areas of study
(Thomas & Magilvy, 2011; Yin, 2010). A qualitative method was appropriate in the
study because this method involves practical information about and understanding of the
fundamental phenomenon by inquiring, exploring, and gaining new knowledge
(Creswell, 2003). Qualitative research can involve exploration and understanding of a
central phenomenon, a methodology of reduction to identify specific statements, analyses
of formed themes, and the search for meanings (Creswell, 2005). According to Leedy
and Ormrod (2009), a researcher uses a case study research design when seeking to
explain: (a) why a phenomenon exists and (b) when little is understood about the
phenomenon being studied. Creswell (1998) argued, “Qualitative researchers rely of few
cases and many variables” (p. 16).
A case study design is considered when the focus of the study is to answer what,
how, and why questions and the boundaries between the phenomenon and context are
unclear (Yin, 2003; Yin, 2014). Case studies can reveal insight about a phenomenon that
is essential for understanding of a variety of human experiences. A collective case study
consists of an extensive study of two or more individual cases (Creswell, 2007; Yin,
74
2014). A study that involves a number of cases to investigate a phenomenon, population,
or general conditions is called a collective case study (Stake, 2000; Yin, 2014).
Collective case studies are appropriate when the researcher studies more than one case.
The unit of analysis can be either a single case or multi-case study. In a single case, the
unit of analysis is a single individual when a classic case study may be performed.
Regarding multi-case analysis, Yin (2003) stated that all relevant information of the
multiple units of analysis gather together for the study.
The 15 participants in this study were chosen from four companies to build up the
foundation for the collective case study. Each participant represented a case in this
collective case study. The collective case study approach was suitable for this study
because the researcher could jointly study a number of cases to investigate a phenomenon
in the aerospace industry.
The intent of this study was based on an understanding of the phenomenon of
organizational leaders, managers, and subordinates whose skills, talents, and experiences
help to build a knowledge-sharing culture that unlocks employees' talents and supports
cross-generational knowledge transfer. In the aerospace industry field, use of a case
study may provide a rich understanding and holistic account of a phenomenon. Listening
to the recordings and reading the transcriptions concurrently helped minimize this loss of
unique knowledge and allowed deep exploration of the selected phenomenon. In this
study, NVivo10© software was used to identify themes from the transcribed interviews
of the participants' perceptions and experiences. A qualitative study with the collective
case design was the best approach for answering the questions posed in the study.
75
Qualitative research enables a researcher to better understand social situations,
events, groups, roles, or interactions (Creswell, 2002). According to Shank (2006),
qualitative science, like all forms of science, involves pursuing systematic sources of
knowledge, and an important part of this is the questioning process in the study.
Creswell (2005) described reliable factors that help assess whether qualitative or
quantitative research is most appropriate, based upon the overarching theme of the study.
According to Neuman (2006), quantitative researchers begin their research with an
abstract idea, pursue the study with a measurement procedure, and conclude with
empirical data that represent the views. Quantitative research consists of statistical
analysis that includes interpretation, comparing the results with past research and prior
predictions (Creswell, 2002). Therefore, a quantitative research design was rejected for
this study. In contrast to quantitative research, the researcher in a qualitative research
study needs to learn from the participants involved in the study.
Thomas and Magilvy (2011) postulated that qualitative research is focused on
depth, richness, and context. A qualitative study was the most appropriate research
design for the study because qualitative research involves exploring a particular
phenomenon or experience to build further understanding of the leaders' behavior, skills,
and knowledge (Baker, 2006; Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Qualitative research is
associated with the words, language, and the experiences of participants. The researcher
adopted a person-centered and holistic perspective to understand the participants'
experiences. The participants taking part in the study responded to open-ended questions
in a semi-structured interview. In the study, each participant in the interview responded
to the same set of 12 open-ended questions.
76
Population and Sampling
Qualitative designs typically incorporate a small sample and the collection of data
through interviews (Whittemore & Melkus, 2010). Shank (2006) suggested that the
population should be large enough to provide a sufficient representative sample for the
study. Shank (2006) also noted that sampling should be conducted randomly so that
“there is a better chance that our sample findings can be applied, or generalized, to some
larger population” (p. 112). Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) stated that qualitative
research requires a sample; the researcher decides the size of the sampling and how to
proceed with the study by selecting the setting and the activities that will be performed
during the interview. The primary advantage of data collection through sampling is that
the information is captured in real time in its true nature, providing freshness to the
analysis.
Leedy and Ormrod (2009) recommended that a sample should be chosen through
a process that incorporates appropriate proportions for each subgroup within the overall
group of people or objects. The study had a target of 30 leaders, managers, and
subordinates in the aerospace manufacturing industry geographically located in the state
of Washington. Identified participants came from the Puget Sound region in Washington
State, and their identification occurred by using various social networking websites, such
as manta.com, linkedin.com, twitter.com, and manufacturersnews.com. Potential
participants received a letter of invitation to participate in the study; the letter arrived via
e-mail or direct mail (Appendix A). Of those participants who respond affirmatively, 17
respondents were selected: two participated in a pilot study and 15 in the full-scale study.
77
Collection of the following demographic information from each participant
followed: (1) participant’s title, (2) participant’s age, (3) participant’s academic
background, (4) total number of years in the industry, (5) the leadership style of each
participant, (6) the participant’s function, and (7) his or her Work Area Category. The
“Work Area Category” consists of six general work areas for the participants: strategy
development, knowledge management systems/processes/practices, workforce
management and development, leadership practices, strategies and culture; and
manufacturing complexity (Appendix B). Participation in this study was voluntary, and
the participants’ personal information remains in the strictest confidence.
Interview Protocol
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2009), giving participants a short introduction
to the study objectives is critical for motivating them to share their personal time and
knowledge. In the initial stage of the interview process, communication with participants
occurred via e-mail to clarify elements of the interview and establish trust between the
researcher and interviewee. Use of various social networking websites occurred to
identify participants for the study, including manta.com, linkedin.com, twitter.com,
manufacturersnews.com, and thomasnet.com.
Use of these sites was helpful for identifying participants for the study located in
the Puget Sound region in the state of Washington. Finding information regarding
business phone numbers, e-mails, and home addresses of the participants involved either
(a) the white or yellow pages of a phonebook, or (b) searching the business name on the
Internet. Furthermore, the use of a combination of e-mails, telephone calls, colleague
78
referrals, participant referrals, and postings placed on professional websites were used to
enroll participants in the study.
Each participant received a letter clearly communicating the purpose of the study,
emphasizing its importance, and encouraging free and cooperative involvement while
answering the questionnaire. This letter arrived via e-mail (Appendix A). This letter
included an Interview Participation Card (Appendix C) to ensure that each participant
understood his or her participation was voluntary should he or she agree to the interview.
Each participant had the option of either an affirmative e-mail reply or a signed interview
response card. The signature on the card represented acknowledgement of the
participant's willingness to participate in the study. A study plan made it impossible to
trace information back to the participant by use of a code linking to the participant's
identity (Appendix D). Scheduling of the individual interviews occurred at a mutually
acceptable place in the Seattle metropolitan area, with acknowledgment of the owner's
approval by signing Premises, Recruitment, and Name Use Permission forms (Appendix
E).
All interviews were either face-to-face or occurred via teleconference at a
mutually agreeable location and time. Prior to the interview, participants received a
notice that they could conclude the interview at any time (Appendix F). The interview
began with a concise prologue on the nature and purpose of the study, expectations of the
duration of the interview, and a review of the terminology (Appendix G). The face-to-
face interviews followed pre-scripted questions to minimize the risk of possible research
bias during the data collection process (Appendix H). The interview questions were
designed to ascertain participant perspectives leading to an extensive answer to the
79
central research question. Participants received a transcribed copy of their individual
interview to allow them to validate the information.
Research Questions
Qualitative process research questions are open-ended directional guides to solve
a problem by explaining and exploring qualitative designs (Creswell, 2005). The central
research question (CRQ) in the study was, “What knowledge and skills do leaders need to
develop an effective, knowledge-sharing culture in organizations?” To clarify further the
central research question, the study was guided by five sub-questions:
RQ1: What are the particular risks and challenges that companies face in
ensuring the transfer of the operational knowledge that aging workforces possess,
before they retire?
RQ2: What is the effect of leadership practices on nurturing a knowledge-sharing
culture?
RQ3: How can organizational leaders improve their leadership skills for leading
aging workforces in the aerospace manufacturing industry?
RQ4: How are leadership practices used to establish a work environment that
values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers?
RQ5: What is an organizational strategy to attract, develop, and retain an aging
workforce?
The knowledge carriers – leaders, managers, and subordinates – expressed their
experiences, observations, beliefs, and observations regarding the leadership practices in
organizations. The five sub-questions supported the central research questions but with a
80
narrower focus. The five sub-questions helped in collecting the data that led to answering
the central research question.
The design included in-depth, semi-structured interviews consisting of 12
questions to gather information from the participants. According to Neuman (2006),
open-ended questions make the participant give a descriptive answer in sentences. Open-
ended questions allow participants to provide information that the interviewer may not
have considered. In a semi-structured interview, all interviewees addressed the same
basic open-ended questions (Appendix H). Interviews consisted of an informal,
approximately 60-minute audio-recorded session. Wainwright and Russell (2010) noted
that the software benefit of using audio-analysis is systematic, rigorous analysis and
enabling capability help the researcher work through the entire interview without
neglecting sections or annotation. Processing the interview data and generating
transcriptions of the data occurred via NVivo10 technology to uncover consistent themes
in the study.
Informed Consent
All participants completed an “Informed Consent Agreement” (Appendix F)
before beginning their interviews, and the interviewer clarified all issues raised by the
interviewees prior to the start of the interview. Leedy and Ormrod (2009) stated that
informed consent and the right to privacy are ethical issues in research. All respondents
received a letter of informed consent based on their verbal consent to participate in the
study.
Contacting potential participants primarily involved an e-mail to schedule an
interview with an option to use a telephone contact as a backup method. Participants
81
learned that their participation was voluntary and that they retain the right to withdraw at
any time before, during, or after the data collection interview. Participants received at
least 48 hours to make this decision, provide contact information via phone or email, and
contact the interviewer regarding their participation or withdrawal from the study. The
interview process allowed subjects to decline to answer any question that made them
uncomfortable or that they wanted to skip for any reason.
Each interview lasted approximately 45 to 70 minutes, and the researcher used
audio-recording device for a digital recording to ensure accurate transcription. All data
collected from participant interviews throughout the research process remains
confidential. All taped sessions received a number code, ordered chronologically by
interview.
Confidentiality
In this study, protection of the confidentiality of participants' responses occurred
throughout the research process by the use of an interview number (OL1, OL2, OL3, etc.)
for each of the organizational leaders, managers, and subordinates (Appendix D). Use of
this coding scheme was applied to all digital recordings and transcriptions, and it was
implemented throughout the research to ensure the anonymity of each participant.
Subsequently, the hard copy interview results were scanned and saved to a USB flash
drive. Next, the researcher checked e-mail daily. Then, when new messages arrived, (a)
a hard copy was printed, (b) the email record was cleaned immediately, (c) a code
number was assigned, and (d) the message was put into a computerized folder system
under password protection. By way of informed consent, the participants learned and
understood that (a) all transcripts and (b) the USB drive would remain in confidence and
82
locked in a secure location inaccessible to anyone other than the researcher (Appendix
G). In addition, they learned that the transcripts would be destroyed after 3 years.
Confidentiality was guaranteed because at no time would the subjects have to
provide any information that could disclose their identity (Appendix I). Furthermore, the
identities of the participants and the company remain confidential, and the final report
does not reveal any information to anyone beyond the researcher's dissertation
committee. Confidential records will be maintained for a period of 3 years in a locked
safe in the researcher's private office. Afterwards, shredding and destruction of records
will occur. Because of these measures, there were and are no foreseeable risks to the
participants of the data from the research subject being potentially identified or linked to
a particular participant.
Pilot Test
The function of a pilot study was to assess, make revisions, identify needs or
improvement, and make definitive determinations about the study (Mackey & Gass,
2005; Neuman 2003). Neuman (2003) stated that pilot testing is vital in helping the
researchers develop the study process for receiving information and recording data. The
testing was also important as a means of discovering needs for any improvements in the
study design. As such, the pilot test ensured that the questions are valid, vigorous, and
credible.
A pilot study of the research questions occurred with two participants. The pilot
study participants came from a pool of leaders, managers, and subordinates in the top five
fastest growing organizations in the Puget Sound region in the U.S. state of Washington.
Moreover, the participants engaged in interviews and provided feedback concerning the
83
clarity of the interview questions, difficulties, or concerns, and any other beneficial
suggestions for the study. An application of the pilot study results was helpful to
determine whenever the interview protocol or any of the interview questions required
changes. Neither of the two participants offered suggestions to change the interview
questions. Based on the feedback from the participants, the interview questions were
understandable and did not require clarification.
Data Collection and Procedures
Neuman (2006) maintained that qualitative data collection necessitates the
documentation of real events and the recording of the interviewees’ spoken words, visible
gestures, and tone of voice. It also requires the observation of any specific behaviors
revealed during the interview. Thomas and Magilvy (2011) noted that the result of
qualitative research is the emergence of (a) a new theory, (b) a new model, or (c) the
development of a valid instrument. The authors concluded that a larger amount of data
was normally collected with a smaller number of participants. Neuman (2006) further
argued that full field notes can include interviews, tape recordings, and videotapes. In the
process of conducting this study, one-on-one, in-person, or conferencing audio-recorded
interviews took place with the participants.
The data-collection process must be equally precise and systematic in order to
minimize error (Whittemore & Mekus, 2008). According to Polkinghorne (2005), the
qualitative researcher is responsible for vigorous recording during data collection; the
author notes, however, that some information and nuances may be lost when verbal data
are transcribed. A data-collecting process involved verifying the participants’ eligibility
for the study, scheduling interviews, and collecting interview data. The use of several
84
social networking websites occurred as a means of identifying participants for the study
in the Puget Sound region, Washington. These outlets included manta.com,
linkedin.com, twitter.com, manufacturersnews.com, and thomasnet.com.
In some cases, a human resources (HR) director of the company coordinated with
the study participants and the researcher. This method followed a request of the
participant. The contact information to contact the HR director of the organization was
obtained by searching online data, local business catalogs, and/or participants’ reference.
The researcher contacted the HR director of the company to (a) explain the rationale of
the study, (b) request permission to conduct a research study, and (c) select the study
participants. Upon the approval of the HR director, the researcher contacted potential
participants via e-mail to clarify the factors of the study and establish trust between the
researcher and the interviewee.
The participants identified as volunteers from the sampling learned they could
select the time and date for their interview. Coordination of the interview times and dates
occurred through e-mail, face-to-face interaction, and direct telephone contact. The
signed Premises, Recruitment and Name (PRN) forms required for this study are included
in Appendix J.
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2009), “in research, we cannot force the data to
support anything” (p. 216). Neuman (2006) explained that a qualitative researcher
reexamines and reflects on the data and concepts simultaneously and interactively. In
this study, confirmation of the accuracy of the transcription occurred via e-mail. Each
participant engaged in a post-interview review.
85
Post-Interview Reviews
Leedy and Ormrod (2009) suggested that following an interview, the researcher
should submit a transcript of the interview and obtain either a written acknowledgment of
its accuracy or a corrected copy from the interviewee. Interviews lasted for a period of
40-70 minutes. After each interview session, the addition of notes concerning the
interview documented any environmental and non-verbal interpretations from the
interview. Copying of each digital audio recording occurred by moving the data from the
device to storage in a secure computer. The transcription of the audio files into Microsoft
Word formatted documents followed within 48 hours of the interview through the
external transcription service (see Non-Disclosure form – Appendix K). Representative
participants received the verbatim transcripts via e-mail for verification and validation.
After the participants confirmed agreement with the accuracy of the direct transcription
of the interviews, the data analysis phase of the study started. The techniques of
interviewing, reviewing, and receiving responses continued until a sample of 15
participants emerged and the participants confirmed for the study.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis involves four phases: (1) defining the types of data to
use, (2) classifying data, (3) finding connections between data classes, and (4) presenting
data analysis results (Shank, 2006). The process of qualitative data analysis includes data
reduction or data coding, clustering of codes, and drawing and verifying conclusions
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Coding is used to establish the classification of the data into
distinct categories for further analysis. Creswell (1994) noted that coding provides an
86
indicator for the frequency of occurrence, while classifying allows one to take the text or
qualitative information apart and look for categories and themes. According to Yanchar,
South, Williams, Allen, and Wilson (2010), data analysis focuses on the identification of
key themes in the participants’ responses. Analyzing narrative data for patterns and
themes is the process of assigning meaning to the collected information and determining
the conclusions, significance, and implications of the findings (Leedy & Ormrod, 2009).
The following steps are required in a data analysis: (1) reading all transcripts, (2)
looking for preliminary topics of relevance, (3) refining into themes, (4) organizing into
thematic structure, (5) selecting illustrative quotes, (6) comparing and contrasting themes,
and (7) examining the coherence of the overall thematic structure (Yanchar et al., 2010).
The study remained open to all possibilities, including differing options for data
collection. Responses from the 15 participants were transcribed, analyzed, and coded as
text data (Appendix L).
According to Yanchar et al. (2010), data analysis is focused on the identification
of key themes in participants’ responses. Data analysis in this study built on participants’
responses and involved identifying emerging patterns and themes that become clear
throughout the data-collection process. As such, use of the NVivo10© software occurred
to help analyze data by assisting the researcher to organize, code, and identify the core
themes from each interview session. Figure 1 shows an iterative process to investigate a
particular theme in this study.
87
Figure 1. An iterative process to investigate a particular theme
NVivo10 includes the option to import and transcribe a transcript. The program
helped play and analyze an audio source in detailed view with options to select content
from the transcript and code selected information into a node. The way to approach
coding begins in (a) organizing the material into broad topic areas, (b) exploring the node
for each topic, (c) conducting more detailed coding by gathering all of the content about
the selected node, and then (d) exploring the node by looking for interesting perceptions,
contradictions, or assumptions (NVivo10 for Windows, 2013). NVivo’s auto-coding
features helped structure sources from the interview documents where participants
answered the same set of questions.
By using a word frequency query, a researcher can see when the interviewers use
common terms. Using NVivo10© software features, the process of coding included the
88
use of words, phrases, text string searches, and sentence queries. If an interesting phrase
or theme in one interview emerged, then the use of a text search query occurred to
analyze interview scripts of the other participants. The study included steps in using the
emerging themes, categories, and structural descriptions to conduct comparisons between
the research literature about the phenomenon under study and the researcher’s underlying
assumptions. Data analysis in this study built on the responses of the participants and on
the identified emerging patterns that become clear throughout the data collection process.
Evaluation of each broad theme occurred within its own context and within the context of
leadership practices.
Validity and Reliability
This study included triangulation of sources to allow for convergence of evidence
in a single study. Yin (2003) stated that researchers can improve the credibility of case
studies with triangulation. Stake (1995) and Yin (2003) stated that the types of
triangulation used in the research are: data source, investigator, theory, and
methodological. The data collection stage of this study involved data source
triangulation. Data collection sources consisted of 15 individual interviews that included
12 open-ended questions for instructions and administrations, observation of instructions,
and document reviews. Gathering data through interviews and comparing it to the factors
identified in the literature review helped determine the core themes and establish internal
validity. Convergence of the core themes strengthened the validity of the conclusions.
Another strategy to build validity was verification. Yin (2014) pointed out that
the purpose of triangulation is to (a) confirm data and (b) ensure data are complete. Each
participant in the study reviewed and verified the interview script before the researcher
89
started the full-scale analysis. In this study, use of multiple data sources ensured
accuracy of the data with the researcher’s interpretation of the participants’ experiences:
(a) 15 interviews with participants representing four companies; (b) a review of the case
notes, detailed descriptions, and direct quotations; and (c) participants’ observations
during the interview.
The final analysis stage of the study involved utilization of theory triangulation.
Identifying theory in the research design was the strategy employed to address external
validity. The two theories framing the proposed study were the Complexity Leadership
and the Complex Adaptive Systems. Complexity leadership theory and complex adaptive
system comprised a suitable model to create complex adaptive behavior for an emergent
workforce in an increasingly complex, uncertain, and changing world. In context of the
21st century knowledge era, the new paradigms of leadership development require a
cognitive shift of mindsets in leaders. In conditions of turbulence – economic, social, and
political – the leadership is challenged to adapt to them and the focus is on strategic
thinking that requires a change in organizational culture. Generalization to theory rather
than populations increases the external validity in the study.
According to Thomas and Magilvy (2011), the researcher should remain open to
all possibilities to include all options while collecting information. The purpose of the
pilot test was to test the data-collection instrument for clarity and reliability. The pilot
study included interviewing two participants and allowing them the opportunity to
provide feedback concerning the clarity of the questions, their difficulty and concerns,
and any other beneficial comments. The results of the pilot study helped determine
whether changes were required to the interview protocol or any of the interview
90
questions. Other steps to achieve reliability included reviewing the collected data for
consistency with the purpose of the research and interview questions.
Thomas and Magilvy (2011) emphasized that qualitative research must be
reflective, maintaining a sense of awareness and openness to the study and unfolding
results. Credibility can be established through maintaining extended contact with the
respondents to get to know them and how they act, as advised by Shank (2006). To
establish credibility, a review of the individual transcripts occurred using NVivo10©
software capabilities for similarities within and across study participants. The three
strategies to strengthen the reliability of the study were: (a) interview techniques, (b)
prolonged time with the participants, and (c) the use of the words of the participants in
the final report (Thomas & Magilvy, 2011).
Summary
The objective of this chapter was to outline and highlight the reasons for the
researcher choosing a qualitative collective case study. The focus of the study was on
obtaining direct information from leaders, managers, and subordinates about their
perception and belief regarding developing a culture of knowledge sharing, knowledge
management strategies, cross-generational knowledge exchange, retention of an aged
workforce, and determining the characteristics of an open corporate culture. The
population sampling of 17 participants (two participated in a pilot study and 15 in the
full-scale study) came from the aerospace manufacturing industry in the Puget Sound
region, the U.S. state of Washington.
For the purpose of achieving integrity and trustworthiness in the data-collection
process, a pilot study occurred to test the research instrument reliability. Two pilot
91
interviews wrapped up before the final study. In addition, providing the participants with
a copy of the interview transcripts for review helped validate the data collected. Each
participant had a chance to validate the transcripts, provide feedback, and make
recommendations. The data retrieved from the responses of the participants enabled
examination and comprehension of the case studies pertaining to the aerospace industry.
The study involved NVivo10 technology to analyze the data. The interviews,
recordings, notes, and transcriptions comprised the essence of the learned experience
from the study participants (Moustakas, 1994). One-to-one interviews occurred to obtain
data, and each participant could decline participation prior to, during, or after the
interview. Emergent themes from the interviews might help leaders, managers, and
knowledge workers realize the potential effect of (a) a knowledge-sharing culture and (b)
knowledge preservation processes on an organizations’ performance in a knowledge-
based economy (Boatman & Wellins, 2011; Creth, 2000; Eagler & Kosiak, 2011; Frick,
2011; Hamer, 2010; Isakson & Akkermans, 2011; Jaruselski & Katzenbach, 2012;
Mohrman & Lawler, 2012; Sakkab, 2011; Soliman, 2011; Sousa & Dierendonck, 2010).
Chapter 3 contained a description of the method, design, appropriates, research
questions, population, sampling, interview protocol, interview questions, data collection,
and analysis of the study. Based on the results of the review of research methods, the
qualitative collective case study design was appropriate for the study of the phenomenon.
This was because it enabled an exploration of the research questions in one-on-one
interviews related to the knowledge and skill of leaders, managers, and subordinates at
aerospace manufacturing industry companies in Puget Sound, Washington. The content
of Chapter 3 added credibility and conformity to the study while demonstrating the
92
dependability and transferability of the research. Chapter 4 includes a presentation of the
research findings that identify the data as assembled. Subsequently, a detailed discussion
of the study appears in Chapter 5, the last chapter.
93
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this collective case study was to investigate the people-focused
practices leaders use to build and nurture a culture of innovation and knowledge sharing,
enabling a smooth transfer of operational knowledge within multigenerational workforces
in the aerospace manufacturing industry. Use of the collective case design in this
qualitative study helped explore personal knowledge and involved encouraging each
participant to focus on his or her space (Christensen, Johnson, Burke, & Turner, 2011;
Yin, 2014). A qualitative method with a collective case research design was appropriate
for the proposed research study to explore the lived experiences and phenomena of 17
leaders, managers, and subordinates (two participated in a pilot study and 15 in the full-
scale study).
Twelve open-ended questions were designed to stimulate thoughts and subjective
responses in fifteen individual interview sessions. Responses to these questions advanced
a broad range of opinions for analysis to help determine common value themes in
leadership skills and the knowledge to develop a knowledge-sharing culture. As a quality
check, the researcher e-mailed annotated transcripts of the interviews to the participants
after inserting notations to ensure preservation of meaning. The inferring of central
themes in this study was achieved using NVivo10© software to analyze the data from
semi-structured interview transcripts. The description of the study findings articulated in
Chapter 4 includes a presentation of the results in sections: (a) review of the problem
statement, (b) review of the research questions, (c) pilot test, (d) demographics of the
94
participants, (e) data collection process, (f) transcription and coding, (g) data analysis and
presentation of findings, and (h) conclusions.
Review of the Problem Statement
The general problem guiding the qualitative study was that aging workforces
depart from organizations, taking with them the operational knowledge needed for the
next generation to become knowledgeable workers in the aerospace manufacturing
industry. The specific problem of the study was that a lack of manufacturing leadership
practices capturing the operational knowledge of retiring-age employees could lead to a
decreased competitive advantage in the aerospace manufacturing industry. This
qualitative collective case study involved an examination of leadership challenges in the
aerospace manufacturing industry in the U.S. state of Washington with a focus on how
leaders can (a) resolve the knowledge gap and develop a competitive advantage by
building a culture of knowledge-sharing and (b) transform manufacturing workers into
technical, highly skilled production professionals by driving multigenerational legacy
knowledge in talented individuals.
Review of Research Questions
The intent of this collective case research was to examine the role of leadership
practices in developing a knowledge-sharing culture and improving knowledge
preservation processes in the aerospace industry to mitigate the threat of losing
operational knowledge as aging generations retire. The qualitative collective case study
was based on the research questions. The central research question (CRQ): What
knowledge and skills do leaders need to develop an effective, knowledge-sharing culture
in organizations? The study included five sub-questions for exploration:
95
RQ1: What are the particular risks and challenges that companies face in ensuring
the transfer of the operational knowledge that aging workforces possess before
they retire?
RQ2: What is the effect of leadership practices on nurturing a knowledge-sharing
culture?
RQ3: How can organizational leaders improve their leadership skills for leading
aging workforces in the aerospace manufacturing industry?
RQ4: How are leadership practices used to establish a work environment that
values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers?
RQ5: What is an organizational strategy to attract, develop, and retain an aging
workforce?
Pilot Study
A pilot study with interviews of two participants occurred to review the research
questions prior to inclusion in the full-scale study. Both pilot test participants understood
the interview questions, found that the questions were relevant to the research topic, and
provided detailed responses to the interview questions based on their perceptions and
lived experiences. Validation of the pilot study indicated that it did not present any
problems in the design of the interview questions, the interview process, or the
procedures.
Demographics of the Participants
Participants received a demographic questionnaire at the start of each interview.
The participants included leaders, managers, and subordinates from the aerospace
industry in the Puget Sound region in the state of Washington. All participants came
96
from four companies, which varied in revenue from millions to billions of dollars per
year. The interviews occurred in a private setting that was mutually convenient. Thirteen
male and two female interviewees participated. The participants’ jobs ranged from
subordinates to the director. Table 1 illustrates the demographic data collected from the
participants.
Table 1
Demographic Profile of the Participants
Data Collection Process
Within a few days of the initial study invitations, the interviews began and
spanned over a six-month period. To provide sufficient time for the transcribing and
coding of data, the goal was to schedule a maximum of only one interview each week.
Each participant was briefed about the purpose of the study, and they all volunteered to
97
answer questions during a face-to-face or telephone interview. After they signed the
Informed Consent Form (Appendix F) and completed the Participant Demographic
Profile (Appendix B), a digital auto-recording device recorded responses to the open-
ended questions (Appendix H). A participant code was assigned to each participant with
the goal of providing anonymity.
The interview consisted of 12 open-ended questions. Tape recordings of the
interviews ensured that the entire verbal encounter was captured to provide complete data
for analysis. The interviewer encouraged the participants to take time to reflect on their
perceptions and viewpoints on the asked questions. The interview lasted between 40 and
70 minutes. During the interview, the participant was only asked additional questions to
clarify a few of the responses for adequate understanding. The field notes attempted to
clarify responses that might not seem evident with only the written transcript.
Transcription and Coding
The deployment of NVivo 10© qualitative software (QRS International, 2014)
facilitated the categorization and completion of word frequency counts and statistical
information aggregation after the data were encoded. The initial process involved the
transcription of the audio files through an external transcription service for translation
into Microsoft Word© (MS) formatted documents. Data elements, such as names of
participants or ancillary organizations, were removed during the transcription
reconciliation process. The NVivo10© software program enabled the uploading of word
documents and encoding features enabled the color coding of the MS word transcripts.
Categorization of the textual words and sentences within each transcript occurred and
noted for the further identification of themes.
98
A six-step process was implemented in this study using the NVivo 10© software.
The six steps were (1) exploring interviews, (2) coding the source, (3) running a report to
see which nodes were used more often and how these nodes relate to each other, (4)
making a model to explore the relationships, (5) working with treemaps to compare
nodes, and (6) recording personal thoughts in a memo.
Use of the classification of nodes occurred in the study to see how participants
from different generations responded to the same question in an interview. The node
classifications provide demographic details about the people, places, or other “cases” in
the study (QRS International, 2014). The source classification was used to store
bibliographic information about the sources in the study, so that data sources were linked
to participants’ case nodes and their demographic characteristics. Each participant was
assigned to a single case. All of the text associated with one case was collected into one
location – case node. Coding more content at classified nodes created options for the
researcher to use queries to ask meaningful questions in searching the collected data.
For example, does the Baby Boomer age-group feel differently about Question 1 than
does the Generation X group? Table 2 illustrates the nodes classifications data.
Table 2
Node Classifications
99
Working with source classification required those steps. The first step was to
create the nodes for the interview documents. The next step was to assign an ID number
for each participant (OL1, OL2, OL15), to keep their anonymity, to classify those nodes
as “person-nodes,” and then to import the spreadsheet file via the “External Data” feature
in NVivo 10 (existing file in MS Excel: Participants Demographic sheet) to automatically
classify the nodes for the interview respondents. Table 3 illustrates the participants’
internal data in NVivo 10.
Table 3
Participants Internals Data
Data Analysis and Presentation of Findings
The study focused on leadership practices in the aerospace manufacturing
industry that build and nurture a culture of promoting shared operational knowledge in
multigenerational workforces, helping them to survive in a continuously changing
business environment. This entailed equal treatment of all participants’ responses to the
12 questions regardless of their company’s revenue, size or location, or the participant’s
title, experience, and number of years of employment in the industry. The NVivo 10©
100
software helped in initiating the review of the research data with (a) a text search query,
(b) a word frequency query, and (c) auto coding. Figure 2 shows the most frequently
occurring words in the sources and illustrates the results in a word cloud.
Figure 2. Most frequently occurring words in the sources
The study included several options to code data in NVivo 10: (a) free nodes,
which are independent and with no clear connection to other nodes, and (b) tree nodes,
which are used to create hierarchical coding structures (QSR International, 2014;
Siccama & Penna, 2015). These steps ensued to start the analysis of the interview scripts
in NVivo 10: first was creating a case node for the Participant OL1; second was assigning
values to OL1 attributes; third was open coding by reading the text line-by-line in finding
ideas and text to code (Siccama & Penna, 2015). These steps were repeated for
Participants 2 to 15. Once open coding of the entire participant data was completed, a
step was followed to broad-brush coding into several categories, as shown in Table 4.
101
Table 4
Broad-Brush Coding
Note: Assign a color to a node to: (a) visually distinguish nodes, (b) keep track of
significant nodes, and (c) make it easier to see patterns. (NVivo 10 for Windows)
In this stage, analysis of the participants’ responses by their answers on the
keywords in the interview questions occurred. For example, the response of Participant
OL2 was nodded (specific codes) to words “practicable,” “visible,” and “workable.”
This strategy in nodding allowed for the understanding of all participants’ perceptions,
views, thoughts, and experiences before coding across cases. After exploring and coding
a source – 15 transcripts of interviews – the time was spent reflecting on the newest
information and accumulated data. Examples of the specific codes associated with each
question appear in Table 5.
102
Table 5
Questions and Associated Codes
The study involved recording and analyzing answers to the interview questions.
The next sections consist of reports of the analysis and results of the interview questions.
Interview Question 1. Interview Question 1 asked, “What are the steps in
building and nurturing a culture of sharing knowledge?” The purpose of the first
question was to identify ways to influence the norms and behaviors of employees.
Interview Question 2. Interview Question 2 asked, “What characterizes a
knowledge sharing culture in the organization as visible, workable, and practicable?”
The purpose of Interview Question 2 was to identify ways the new knowledge is
developed and shared.
Interview Question 3. Interview Question 3 asked, “Have you created a set of
core values, norms, and beliefs in order to guide the development of a knowledge-sharing
culture?” The purpose of Interview Question 3 was to understand a living phenomenon
experienced by participants’ in influencing, motivating, and enabling others to contribute
toward the organizational success.
103
Interview Question 4. Interview Question 4 asked, “What do leaders (managers)
need to know to perform more efficiently in unlocking creativity in employees?” The
purpose of Interview Question 4 was to identify leaders’ and managers’ effectiveness
with a dimensional shift that requires appreciating individual uniqueness in the context of
cultural differences.
Interview Question 5. Interview Question 5 asked, “What is the leadership’s
role in creating, leading, managing, and sustaining knowledge management systems in
the organization?” The purpose of Interview Question 5 was to provide a better
understanding of managing knowledge gained by people in its varied forms.
Interview Question 6. Interview Question 6 asked, “How can leadership develop
a culture and build an environment that support creativity and novelty?” The purpose of
Interview Question 6 was to discover the ways of getting the best from the employee as a
knowledge carrier.
Interview Question 7. Interview Question 7 asked, “What are characteristics of
an ideal culture?” The purpose of Interview Question 7 was to seek participants’
thoughts in an idealistic culture with its elements, functions, attitudes, and sources.
Interview Question 8. Interview Question 8 asked, “How do leaders affect
innovation and creativity through their efforts to deliberately foster a business climate
that support creative thinking?” The purpose of Interview Question 8 was to help
understand the effectiveness of intellectual capital related to the hiring, training, and
retraining of employees.
Interview Question 9. Interview Question 9 asked, “What is the leadership’s
role in creating an organizational climate that supports an aging workforce to share their
104
operational knowledge?” The purpose of Interview Question 9 was to help understand
the demand for systematic knowledge exchange.
Interview Question 10. Interview Question 10 asked, “How can leadership
improve knowledge retention strategies to focus on developing the next generation of the
knowledgeable workforce?” The purpose of Interview Question 10 was to help
understand organizational leadership in setting the context for knowledge management,
which supports the employee’s (knowledge worker’s) engagement and retention.
Interview Question 11. Interview Question 11 asked, “Why is the development
of well-articulated knowledge retention strategies important for your business?” The
purpose of Interview Question 11 was to help understand the risks of losing
manufacturing intelligence as the right information wherever and whenever it is needed.
Interview Question 12. Interview Question 12 asked, “What will happen to your
organization if knowledge is not passed down to the youngest workforce?” The purpose
of Interview Question 12 was to help understand the use of the organizational intellectual
capital across the company and generations.
An in-depth examination of the collected data revealed key words, phrases,
themes, and categories. Comparison of words and sentences from the transcripts of
participants’ answers to the interview questions helped in the identification and
elaboration of short phrases. Using NVivo 10© software features, the process of coding
included the use of words, phrases, text string searches, and sentence queries. Those
steps led to the exploration of textual patterns, which facilitated the linking and labeling
of themes.
105
The next step was to explore the connection between categories to look at the data
for relationships and perspectives. Under the parent node, “leadership knowledge,” four
child nodes were created: competencies, cross-generation, support, and training. A child
node was in a hierarchical structure below the designated parent node. Child nodes
allowed for more in-depth interrogation of the data. This stage of the coding process
involved child nodes to narrow the examples of categories found across cases (QSR
International, 2014). The data reduction ensured that data from participant responses
were correctly allocated into invariant constituent categories. A selection of data from
transcribed transcripts was allocated in child nodes by using NVivo 10© software.
The researcher found that these themes affected the leadership practices of all the
participants: environment, culture, technology, policies, time, resources, and climate.
The next step required analysis of child nodes to determine more specific information
about these themes. These steps aided in coding for child node categories. The process
of merging of one or more nodes into another existing parent node occurred. Use of this
feature applied when nodes were a similar content or purpose. For example, a merge was
achieved in the nodes an open environment, a safe environment, a collaborative
environment, and an inclusive environment into the node organizational environment. By
merging nodes, all of the coded material organizational environment was combined into
a single node. This process helped in managing the research data.
Identification of twelve distinct categories occurred from a total of 180 answers to
the interview questions from all participants. The selection of the core categories was
based on the consistency of the participants’ statements and similar meanings.
Category #1. Organizational Environment
106
Category #2. Knowledge Preservation Strategies
Category #3. Challenges
Category #4. Organizational Practices
Category #5. Organizational Processes
Category #6. Leadership Skills
Category #7. Organizational Climate
Category #8. Knowledge-Sharing Culture
Category #9. Leadership Knowledge
Category #10. Emerging Workforce
Category #11. Teaming
Category #12. Technology
The allocation of themes as nodes assisted in mapping information that facilitated
the interpretation and meaning of the data. The NVivo 10© software easily summarized
important characteristics of the transcribed interviews by counting words in participants’
responses. Using the NVivo 10 features, clustering of the sources ensued by coding
similarity, which helped to show how different generations answered the interview
questions. Sources were clustered by coding similarity, which is shown in Figure 3.
107
Figure 3. Sources clustered by coding similarity
The following five themes emerged from the combined data: emergent workforce,
leadership (management) knowledge and skills, knowledge-sharing culture,
organizational environment, organizational practices, and knowledge retention strategies.
Interpretation of these themes followed to provide answers to the research questions
related to the lived experience of the participants.
Theme 1: Emergent workforce – Interview questions #4, #8, and #12. The
operations of aircraft manufacturers are affected by globalization in terms of demands of
organizational complexity, environment dynamics, and the globalization of their markets
(IBM Corporation, 2012). Complexity in aircraft design requires enhanced collaboration
and interconnectivity across engineering disciplines and working with business partners
to optimize performance, affordability, and the production process (IBM Corporation,
2012; SelectUSA, 2013).
Participant OL10 mentioned that “the younger workforce come up with more
effective and efficient work processes” when policies and practices are supportive to
knowledge transfer and any barriers to the exchange of knowledge are eliminated. An
108
emergent workforce comes from college with skills to use the newest tools, and they are
idea generators (OL2, OL11, & OL12). Participant OL4 suggested that the knowledge
creators, have to become experts in how these younger generations, the knowledge
receivers, absorb and learn and then continue to reinforce it every day or at least once a
week. The participants’ responses noted that the mixing of the generational workforces
leads to creativity and novelty (OL3, OL4, OL10, & OL12).
Furthermore, OL14 concluded that a management shift is needed to lead its
employees. Managers should train young people to have an attitude to learn from the
experiences of other people rather than having an attitude that they know it all (OL8 &
OL14). By empowering subordinates with a belief in “let them decide, and let them be
creative in implementing the tasks,” an attitude of ownership is established. Leaders
must value diversity at work, in the working environment, and amongst the working
teams (OL3, OL8, OL10, OL12, & OL13).
Building the next generation of smart workers requires “really allowing them to
do their work, I want to say autonomously, to make mistakes” (OL3). The next
generation needs to know what the previous person knew (OL6). The knowledge transfer
within the generation links to the larger knowledge base of the individual. The more
advanced are networking with individuals [employees] to receive it (OL7). Participant
OL2 concluded that the young workforce could be an engine of innovation by (a)
allowing every flower to blossom and (b) allowing every thought to be heard.
In summary, an emergent workforce that penetrates the aerospace industry faces
many obstacles and unknown conditions in the workplace. Workplace complexity in the
era of knowledge economy transforms employees into the knowledgeable workforce.
109
These members of an emergent workforce have diverse perceptions, experiences, and
expertise. The leader works with an emergent workforce that is smart, multicultural,
multigenerational, knowledgeable, mobile, and intelligent (Gratton, 2011; Green &
Roberts, 2012; Lloyd & Hartel, 2010; Ramthum & Matkin, 2012; West, 2007). Theme
One indicated that the emergent workforce requires the attitude of ownership and
learning, empowerment, actions as an engine of innovation and idea generators, the
elimination of barriers, training for skills for using newest technologies, the valuing of
diversity, the breakdown of informational silos, autonomous activities, and acceptance to
make mistakes. All these points affect the young workforce performance.
Theme 2: Leadership (management) knowledge and skills – Interview
questions #3, #7, and #11. The literature review in Chapter 2 discussed how a new set
of leadership skills is needed for leading and managing independent-minded knowledge
workers whose credibility is shown as highly educated, highly-skilled, self-managed,
self-motivated, and innovative (Frick, 2011; Yuan & Woodman, 2010). A leader’s role is
the cultivation of a learning culture that encourages employee inquisitiveness, creativity,
learning from error, openness to sharing knowledge, collaboration, and colleague support
(Nelson & McCann, 2010).
The participants’ responses noted that they (as leaders) have to show a
commitment to knowledge sharing or training (OL1, OL3, & OL10). Several participants
stated that leaders must be creative thinkers who can foster the same quality in their
employees (OL2, OL5, OL6, & OL11). Furthermore, OL13 stated that the leader’s role
was to let the ideas flow, to build up a level of confidence in employees that they have
the power to provide solutions, and to maintain a positive atmosphere that supports
110
knowledge transfer between employees. Several participants (OL1, OL11, OL12, and
OL14) mentioned that leaders should show respect to their people, allow them to be
creative, trust them (OL2), and promote them (OL4). Participant OL15 stated that
leadership’s task is to stay involved with new hires so that they can gain experience and
be exposed to what is important.
OL3, OL7, and OL14 concluded that the leadership team should know and
recognize experienced people and then give them the power to share their operational
knowledge. It is the manager’s responsibility to know each employee’s talents and
motivate the employee to use those skills to manage his or her work (OL7). The attitude
of managers towards employees requires a mindset paradigm shift, in a manner:
I think so many times, we talk down to an employee; from a manager to an
employee or a new person, to say, “You probably do not know it all, so let me tell
you how it really is” instead of saying, “You are actually quite knowledgeable and
smart. How about you tell me what we should be doing, instead?” (OL11)
Organizational leaders are leading by example, showing and demonstrating that
they are the first to learn from others and continue educating themselves and growing
professionally (OL3, OL8, & OL6). Leadership is accountable for the pipeline
development of the smart workforce (OL8). If a leader wants to nurture a culture of
knowledge-sharing, the leader has to change the beliefs of the people (OL4). The
participants’ responses noted that the leaders’ role is to reward individuals who share
knowledge and have an attitude of openness to new ideas (OL8 & OL10). Moreover, the
leaders’ task is to assure the people of their survival if they are sharing new knowledge
(OL2 & OL9).
111
Participant perceptions of leadership knowledge and skills, concerned aims to
create the right environment to open new ways of doing business, foster a business
climate that supports creative thinking, and lead the way by motivating employees to
generate new ideas. Traditionalist OL5 said, “Leaders will affect innovation and
creativity if they deliberately foster a business climate that supports creative thinking. If
they do that, they will be successful.” Baby Boomer OL11 responded with the following:
The environment has to be vulnerable [One should be able to say, for example,]
“Hey, I am going to say what I am going to say here, and this is how I feel,” and
be able to question that, too. “So why do you feel that way?” I think making sure
that everybody is in the same spot [is important]. Trying to transfer over digital
versus just in person, I think that is a huge part.
Generation X OL7 said the following:
For the manager to need to know to perform more efficiently in unlocking the
creativity, once he has that information, obviously, a manager’s responsibility, of
course, I am speaking from my perspective, is to motivate the employee to use
those skills, to use those leadership skills, to manage their work.
The participants’ responses shared similar sentiments from keywords and
experiences identified as actions towards work security, talent management, and an
attitude of openness, new ideas, management commitment, encouragement, reward, and
support in sharing their operational knowledge. Theme Two suggested that leadership
skills and knowledge in creating an organizational environment, supporting a healthy
climate, and nurturing a culture of knowledge sharing depend on the leader’s ability to
learn constantly and grow professionally.
112
Theme 3: Knowledge-sharing culture – Interview questions #1, #2, and #7.
The research study involved finding data useful for leaders seeking to create a
knowledge-sharing culture within multigenerational workforces. Research discoveries
included insights helpful to leaders responsible for the development of well-articulated
knowledge preservation strategies focused on identifying, prioritizing, and capturing
critical operational knowledge from departing employees. Singh (2011) suggested
organizational learning promotes creativity, continuous improvement, and novelty. Singh
(2011) claimed that the move from organizational learning to knowledge creation and
sharing “depends to a larger extent on the nature of organizational learning and
generation, as well as, sharing of knowledge amongst people in the workplace” (p. 717).
The results of organizational learning are based on the development, acquisition,
transformation, and exploitation of new knowledge. Baxter, Connolly, and Stansfield
(2009) wrote that organizational learning is dependent on the culture created within an
organization.
Participant OL1 stated that all knowledge is locked in somebody’s head. Shared
knowledge is consistent with policies and procedures (OL10). The participants’
responses noted that these factors stimulated in them (a) a recognition for knowledge
sharing and encouragement (OL3, OL12, & OL14), (b) a drive to create the process
(OL6, OL8, OL12, OL13, & OL15), (c) a training package (OL4, OL5, & OL8), and (d)
goal setting (OL6, OL7, & OL12). A leader creates an open environment in which
people are willing to learn, talk to each other (OL7, OL8, & OL11), and adopt new
attitudes and ethics toward the team (OL12).
113
What the participants described as experienced was “a culture where somebody
can do the task without having a fear of going wrong, or the task of ‘if I go wrong,’ for
example, ‘I get punished’ benefits employees in sharing their knowledge” (OL2 &
OL14). Participant OL11 stated, “I do not think that I have spent enough time figuring
out what that [knowledge exchange] looks like.” Furthermore, a more flexible culture
that possibly entails a chaotic method of management (OL15) that allows novelty of
thought is needed (OL2, OL8, & OL9). For example, Participant OL2 responded with:
How do you build a bridge between the aging and the new? Do you have a
culture that respects knowledge? Do you have a culture that respects experience?
Is the older worker looking at the younger worker as a threat? It goes back to
question number two: how do you do the fear? How do you remove the fear,
because fear is on every level? Fear is at the management level, leadership level,
the lowest level, and fear is on the middle level.
The Third theme was about the participants’ perceptions of creating a culture of
knowledge-sharing and how this is accomplished by mixing workforces, mentoring the
younger generation, and opening communication between managers and subordinates.
Baby Boomer OL12 said, “Creativity and novelty, I think, comes from you have an aged
workforce and a young force mixing, the multigenerational workforce.” Traditionalist
OL5 said, “There should be different levels so that as the more senior people leave, these
guys can take over those roles that these people were doing.” Generation X OL7 said,
“Communication is important between management and the individuals.”
Participant OL3 mentioned that the leadership’s role is to sustain a culture that
welcomes knowledge gaining and knowledge sharing and recognizes that diversity is
114
necessary. Furthermore, the participants stated that the steps to guide development of the
knowledge-sharing culture are (a) creating the core values (OL4 & OL5), (b) creating the
norms (OL4), and (c) influencing the beliefs (OL4). The authors noted that the leader’s
role should model openness and stability, build trust, develop the next generation of
leaders, encourage team dynamics, and engage people in nurturing a knowledge-sharing
culture (Kieu, 2010; Mohanta & Thooyamani, 2010; Schmidt, 2006; Stempfle, 2011;
Tetenbaum & Laurence, 2011; Xu & Thomas, 2011). Theme Three indicated that the
knowledge-sharing culture is affected by many organizational factors: policies,
procedures, environment, attitudes, team dynamics, management, and leadership.
Theme 4: Organizational environment – Interview questions #6 and #8.
Leaders and managers should have the skills and knowledge to develop a climate
supporting an environment that demands creativity, agility, and openness to new ideas
(Hamer, 2010; O’Dell & Hubert, 2011). When leaders empower knowledgeable
employees by giving them the tools to act as a motivational force in novelty and
creativity, they can develop and deploy knowledge-based resources more efficiently
(Austin, Claassen, Vu, & Mizrahi, 2008; Carleton, 2011; Lakshman, 2009; O'Dell &
Hubert, 2011; Singh, 2011). All the participants identified that the environment affects
employees’ behavior in sharing their operational knowledge. Participant OL1 expressed
that it should be “an environment where people are comfortable with each other and with
their leadership; plus, they have the tools needed for the work.”
The participants’ responses noted that an environment is successful when the
senior managers commit time in their day to mentor the younger employees, specifically
in knowledge sharing and training (OL6 & OL10). Open communication occurs during
115
meetings, including communication between the managers and employees (OL13).
Participants OL2, OL6, OL11, and OL14 concluded that an open environment produces a
group of people willing to learn, generates openness, and allows for the flow of
information across generations and the removal of any barriers to knowledge exchange.
In a supportive environment, the knowledge sharing is critical because of the complexity
of the work (OL7). Participant OL8 stated that an environment may be changed;
however, the inclusive environment is needed to build supportive teams. Furthermore,
participants OL9 and OL14 concluded that a safe environment is one in which people are
not afraid to share their ideas and feel comfortable sharing what they actually think
without the fear of reprisal. A creative work environment is generated when employees
are surrounded by others willing and interested in trying something new and transferring
that interest to others (OL11).
Participant OL7 stated that it is the hope of management not to create an
environment in which management dictates to the staff. Furthermore, Participant OL12
stated leaders should show support for the employees to share their knowledge without
making them fear retaliation. Theme Four indicates that a positive climate has an effect
when employees follow the examples of the leadership and the management teams. The
participants stated that an environment has many ways to support the workforce, such as
being open, inclusive, safe, creative, and comfortable.
Theme 5: Organizational practices – Interview questions #9 and #10. McCain
(2010) highlighted that leaders must be forward thinking and proactive toward changes in
culture to meet future expectations. Authors concluded that creating training programs
helps foster teamwork between team members of different generations (Dasgupta &
116
Dodge, 2010; McNichols, 2010). McNichols’s (2008) strongest argument is that the
leadership practice benefits from formatting teams consisting of combinations of
members of multigenerational workforces. The participants’ responses noted that
managers have to show commitment to knowledge-sharing practices, motivate the people
to do it, and have an understanding of what it is to perform it (OL1 & OL8). Participant
OL10 stated the following:
Allow time for mentoring that includes not only sharing technical knowledge –
for example, how to run reports – but more sharing of knowledge related to how
to analyze the reports so that we can make good business decisions, take timely
action, and create value for the company.
Several participants concluded that managers should practice methods that
consistently help employees feel comfortable sharing their ideas (OL11, OL12, & OL14).
Participant OL11 stated the following:
I think too many times the leaders are just focused on the work that needs to get
done and not on the people themselves. I think that is the biggest part; leaders
need to focus [concentrate] more on the people and less on the deliverables.
Furthermore, it is important to hire the right people from the next generation, retain them,
and expose them to circumstances in which they can develop their knowledge (OL12).
The success of a knowledge retention strategy is important, and it relates to having
people from different cultures, backgrounds, and ages – essential diversity in the
workforce (OL3 & OL12).
The participants identified mentorship, internship, training, teaming, and a
rotational type of program as being crucial (OL3, OL6, OL7, OL8, OL12, OL13, &
117
OL14). The participants’ responses noted that supporting an aging workforce involves
recognizing the people with experience (OL2, OL4, OL5, & OL14), encouraging
employees to share knowledge (OL13), rewarding them (OL8), and letting them take
ownership (OL15). Traditionalist OL5 said, “They should hire people that would be
here, that they can train to promote continuity with the knowledge.”
A traditionalist (OL5) stated that the collective's interest and success depends on
having individuals understand that their success is part of this collective approach. OL5
recommended creating empowering, high-performance teams to execute the work, and
combining those teams that contain all those skills and traits necessary to be successful at
work (OL3). It is necessary to have some ground rules, to understand the good creativity
versus the bad creativity, and to engender the good creativity, which also becomes
innovation (OL4). Participant OL9 stated, “Leaders should treat people the way they
want to be treated and all that stuff.” Theme Five suggests that the organizational
practices with greatest effect on the aged workforce and knowledge retention are:
teamwork, mentorship, internship, training, rotation-type programs, rules, understanding,
encouragement, rewards, ownership, and expertise.
Theme 6: Knowledge retention strategies – Interview questions #5, #10, and
#11. One of the most important business needs for the aerospace knowledge
management team is the retention of knowledge and experience when employees are
abandoning their positions (Bragg, 2011; Haider, 2009; Henard & McFadyen, 2008).
Several researchers noted that a good management strategy is to encourage, support, and
facilitate the formation of teams with the multigenerational workforce, combining
members of multicultural workforces and functions whenever possible (Dasgupta &
118
Dodge, 2010; McNichols, 2010). Participants OL1 stated that the role of leadership is to
motivate and be committed to applying the principles of the strategy. Participant OL11
concluded that steps were needed in (a) removing any barriers between groups and (b)
creating an environment of openness where people talk to each other and are willing to
learn. Participants OL9, OL10, OL12, and OL13 summarized that knowledge
management needs to allow time for mentoring and taking timely actions to create value
for the company.
From experience in his or her organization, participant OL12 noted that electronic
communication systems and conferencing aids helped getting people together to share
their knowledge. The participant noted an organizational strategy in which all employees
across the company access the database of knowledge transferring among employees
(OL15). Participants OL3, OL4, OL6, and OL7 spoke of the bank of knowledge, the
centralized storage required for knowledge sharing, for capturing lessons learned,
processing documentation, and quality assurance. Participant OL14 stated that a
simplified process of the knowledge management system helped newcomers access and
use stored knowledge. The methodical send-off is in having a system of mentorship
(OL2). The transmitters have to be taught the learning style of the receivers (OL4).
Furthermore, hiring strategies and business practices, as the more senior people leave,
should involve hiring newcomers they can train to promote continuity (OL5, OL6, OL7,
& OL8).
Theme Six specified that knowledge-retention strategies are most successful when
the employees have time to participate in (a) knowledge capturing, sharing, and re-using,
and (b) identifying and sharing knowledge across teams, groups, and functions.
119
Managers remove barriers and pursue teamwork along with an environment of openness,
learning, sharing ideas, and an availability of the databank of knowledge. Managers also
create systems of mentorship, good hiring principles, and pairings of knowledge
transmitters with receivers.
Summary
Chapter 4 provided a discussion of the findings drawn from the analysis of
interview data. Direct quotes from the participants appeared often from the transcripts,
where the initial focus was on 12 questions. Use of NVivo 10© software helped
exploration of the textual descriptions from the interview transcripts. After interview
responses were elicited as examples of valid information, the analysis turned to the values
embedded in the interview responses. The NVivo 10© software added rigor to the
process of data analysis through screenshots, coding structures, and matrix queries.
An in-depth examination of the collected data in NVivo 10 determined key words,
themes, and categories. After a thorough review of the participants’ answers to the
interview questions and an examination of the data, twelve distinct categories revealed
six themes. The categories were then reduced to major themes by eliminating
redundancies. The focus of data analysis was on the interview responses of participants
regarding leadership practices for the leaders and managers to create and nurture a
knowledge-sharing culture and improve the knowledge preservation processes in the
aerospace industry.
The literature review in Chapter 2 led to the conclusion that five major factors
were conducive to manufacturing leadership practices: (a) leadership and management
support, (b) organizational climate, (c) knowledge-sharing culture, (d) knowledge
120
preservation strategies, and (e) ingenuity of emergent workforces (Boatman & Wellins,
2011; Deloris, 2013; Frick, 2011; Jaruselski & Katzenbach, 2012; Sakkab, 2011;
Soliman, 2011). The core themes discovered in the interviews are related to the major
factors selected in the literature review. That fact solidifies the credibility of the source
analysis and validity of the responses to the interview questions.
The results of the research indicated the following themes: emergent workforce,
leadership (management) knowledge and skills, knowledge-sharing culture,
organizational environment, organizational practices, and knowledge retention strategies.
The following three themes were critical to the central research question: (1) leadership
(management) knowledge and skills, (2) knowledge-sharing culture, and (3)
organizational practices. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions from the data analysis,
including the study’s findings and interpretations, conclusions from the research
questions, implications, the significance of the findings, recommendations for the future
study, and a summary.
121
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The focus of the study was on leadership practices in the aerospace manufacturing
industry that built and nurtured a culture promoting shared operational knowledge in
multigenerational workforces to survive in a continuously changing business
environment. The concept of a knowledge economy helped identify and contextualize
these practices. The proposed research study was designed to provide new knowledge
about organizational leadership for leaders and managers responsible for: (a) strategies
that cultivate a knowledge-sharing culture and close knowledge gaps between workforce
generations; (b) knowledge preservation strategies; and (c) initiating a further round of
advancement in the aerospace industry. This study was designed to obtain new data
about the required knowledge and skills of organizational leaders who are developing
innovative strategies that focus on people as the key to achieving a competitive advantage
(Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Kaafarani & Stevenson, 2011). A leader’s role is in the
cultivation of a learning culture that encourages employee inquisitiveness, creativity,
learning from error, openness to sharing knowledge, collaboration, and colleague support
(Nelson & McCann, 2010).
According to Schreiber and Somers (2006), complexity leadership theory
recognizes the organizational paradox in the postmodern organization, and leaders
recognize that the organization is a complex adaptive system. Hazy, Goldstein, and
Lichtenstein (2007) concluded that leadership, as a systematic event, emerges out of the
complex systems of human interaction in the organization. The complex leader seeks to
spawn emergent behavior and creative surprises (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien,
122
Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) concluded that a complex
leader’s role is to create the transformational environments necessary to drop seeds of
emergency – enabling useful behaviors, vibrancy for idea generation, and the cultivation
of networks. This theory recognizes leadership practices as leading efficiency, control,
creativity, learning, novelty, and adaptability (Hanson & Ford, 2010; Schreiber &
Somers, 2006; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).
Complexity in a system occurs from the interaction of a system of variables. In
the complexity of the 21st century business environment, long-term competitive survival
requires leaders to possess knowledge of the synchronous process for an organization’s
success and entails the interaction of three variables: (a) purpose, (b) procedure, and (c)
action guide. The complex system is an open system, and the energy flows to and from
the system itself. An organizational leader needs skills and knowledge in transforming
the complex system into simple systems. The reality of the environment in organizations
within the aerospace industry is that the leader’s role is to (a) deal with its complexity, (b)
keep open boundaries, and (c) conjunctions and the inexistence of disjunctions.
Systems’ thinking requires thinking in terms of processes, relationships, and
interconnections (Laszlo, 2012). The complex leadership theory and complex adaptive
system comprise a suitable model to create complex adaptive behavior (in leaders,
managers, and subordinates in the manufacturing industry) in an increasingly complex,
uncertain, and changing world. Several authors posited that leaders must be competent in
systems thinking in the context of leadership practices in organizations of the complex
world (Laszlo, 2012; Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010). Palaima and Skarzauskiene
(2010) stated that the general systems theory is distinguished by a framework of systems
123
thinking, focusing on contingency thought, and a confounding of leadership with
management. High-performing leaders are those whose mindsets are programmed for a
field of the systems thinking (Palaima & Skarzauskiene, 2010).
Several effects of these challenges for the aerospace industry in terms of both
economic and innovation costs were evidenced by the authors cited in the study: (a)
looming shortfall in tech-savvy workers, (b) loss of crucial knowledge due to Baby
Boomer exodus, (c) lack of a knowledge-transfer program/process/strategy, (d) lack of
leadership support in building a knowledge sharing culture, and (e) barriers in the
strategic initiatives for knowledge management (Christopian, 2008; Deloris, 2013;
McNicols, 2008; Nort, 2003).
Chapter 4 contained a description of the qualitative results of the collective case
study and the themes that form a basis for discussion. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions
from the data analysis conducted in chapter 4, including the study’s findings and
interpretations, the research questions conclusions, the implications, the significance of
the findings, recommendations for future studies, and a summary.
Study Findings and Interpretations
The design included in-depth, semi-structured interviews consisting of 12
questions to gather information on perceived leadership skills as they affect building a
knowledge-sharing culture involving generational knowledge transfer, knowledge
preservation strategies, and better fostering of open innovation (inflows and outflows of
knowledge) in the manufacturing industry. Through the use of interviews, the
participants expressed lived experiences relevant to the study topic. The participants
were leaders, managers, and subordinates who were knowledge owners in various roles in
124
the manufacturing industry. Conclusions generated from the 15 participants’ responses to
the interview questions indicated that the core themes were: an emergent workforce,
leadership (management) knowledge and skills, a knowledge-sharing culture, the
organizational environment, organizational practices, and knowledge-retention strategies.
Summaries are displayed in Table 6.
Table 6
Summaries of the Themes
The study involved identifying the manufacturing leadership practices that
capture the operational knowledge of the workforce at retirement age, leading to an
increased competitive advantage. This qualitative collective case study involved an
125
examination of leadership challenges in the aerospace manufacturing industry in the U.S.
state of Washington, focusing on how leaders can (a) resolve the knowledge gap and
develop a competitive advantage by building a culture of knowledge-sharing and (b)
transform manufacturing workers into technical, highly skilled production professionals
by driving multigenerational legacy knowledge in talented individuals. The themes that
emerged from the data analysis served to answer the research questions that guided this
study. A subset of five questions helped answer the central research question: What
knowledge and skills do leaders need to develop an effective, knowledge-sharing culture
in organizations? The following sections include the outcome of the data analysis and the
implications for each research question and the central question. The five supporting
research questions were:
RQ1: What are the particular risks and challenges that companies face in ensuring
the transfer of the operational knowledge that aging workforces possess before
they retire?
RQ2: What is the effect of leadership practices on nurturing a knowledge-sharing
culture?
RQ3: How can organizational leaders improve their leadership skills for leading
aging workforces in the aerospace manufacturing industry?
RQ4: How are leadership practices used to establish a work environment that
values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers?
RQ5: What is an organizational strategy to attract, develop, and retain an aging
workforce?
126
Conclusion for RQ1. What are the particular risks and challenges that
companies face in ensuring the transfer of the operational knowledge that aging
workforces possess before they retire? (IQ#10, IQ#11, & IQ#12; Theme 5) The objective
of RQ1 and its open-ended interview questions was to understand the perception of the
leaders, manager, and subordinates concerning the risk and challenges of the company
when an aging workforce retires. The results from the interview of participants revealed
risks for organizations:
(a) Operational level risks – the throwing away of assets, additional time to do the
work, a lot of rework, additional time to learn and re-learn, the risk of losing
critical knowledge.
(b) Organizational level risks – an immense loss of time, decrease of productivity,
loss of competitiveness, a risk for the business model to face trouble, adding cost
and challenges to competion, diminishing of competitive advantage, a slowing of
rate, and putting the company’s reputation at stake.
Given that employee knowledge, skills, and experience represent an
organizational advantage, the transfer of operational knowledge across the
multigenerational workforce increases business competitiveness, product and services
innovation, and continuous improvement. If the people with experience go away then
operational knowledge will get lost, if not passed on effectively, and the younger
workforce would become noncompetitive.
Participants revealed the main areas challenging organizations: mindsets of
knowledge creators come just to survive, if not transferred; if knowledge dies, a vacuum
is created and the bank of knowledge is lost, risking additional cost and more time spent,
127
organizational stability and profitability, and security on the market; business
performance leading to management changes; the need for organizational services to be
customer friendly; losing the how-to-do knowledge of the things that leads to other
problems; and the additional cost of training and education creates vacuum in
organizational operational knowledge, loss of efficiencies, and requires time for
recreating. Several participants mentioned that an organization faces challenges in
bringing together information from the knowledge creators and sources. Moreover, the
participants stated that knowledge sharing fosters creativity and innovation for
competitive advantage.
The data indicated that knowledge management strategy affects cross-
generational knowledge transfer and requires the leadership team’s awareness of the
different styles of multi-generations in the workplace. The outcomes of theme 5 are the
suggestions that the organizational practices affecting the aged workforce and knowledge
retention are: teamwork, mentorship, internship, training, rotation-type programs, rules,
understandings, encouragement, rewarding, ownership, and expertise. The output of data
for RQ1 allowed for the organization to keep sustainable competitive advantage and
requires the knowledgeable worker, an aging employee, to use unique knowledge
capability to create new ideas and think creatively.
Conclusion for RQ2. What is the effect of leadership practices on nurturing a
knowledge-sharing culture? (IQ#2 & IQ#3; Theme 1) Several researchers noted that a
management strategy is to encourage, support, and facilitate the formation of teams
within the multigenerational workforce, combining members of multicultural workforces
and functions whenever possible (Dasgupta & Dodge, 2010; McNichols, 2010). Theme
128
One indicated that the emergent workforce requires the attitude of ownership and
learning, empowerment, the ability to act as an engine of innovation and idea generators;
eliminating barriers; training for skills in using newest technologies; valuing diversity;
breaking down informational silos; autonomous activities; and acceptance to make
mistakes. All the above affects the young workforce performance. The nature of
aerospace industry work requires a talented workforce and the human talent must be
acquired, nurtured, and leveraged.
Participants described their perception of leaders and their leadership ability to
enable, influence, and motivate employees to contribute in building and nurturing a
culture of sharing knowledge. All participants concluded that leaders can create a climate
fostering an environment that enables the employees to make behavioral changes in
supporting a knowledge-sharing culture. The majority of the participants stated that
leaders must increase their ability to manage the multigenerational workforce, diversity,
business complexity, and ambiguity. A significant statement by many was that the
leadership team has a role in supporting creative minds, letting younger workforce to
learn from mistakes, and becoming idea generators as the seeds of innovation.
Leadership practices in the manufacturing industry are non-linear within internal
and external systems of the organization. The dynamic trends in the increasing
globalization of manufacturing, environment issues, informational technologies, and
social changes all affect leadership in the changing complexity of the organizational
system, workplace complexity, and leadership practices. Organizational novelty depends
on its mixing across the systems, helping its members act in new ways to enable the
organizational system to adapt to new environment. These trends interact with one
129
another by creating dynamic non-linear systems that challenge the knowledge carrier
capabilities in daily workload operation and adaptation to new realities.
Authors noted that complexity leadership theory describes a pathway for novelty,
a notion that all members in the organization act as leaders in each communication,
respect diversity, and provide new insights for leaders in the complex world of business
(Lichtenthaler, 2011; Livingston & Lusin, 2009; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). The data
indicated that leadership practices in the aerospace industry affect nurturing a culture that
opens the willingness of employees (a) to accept a critical knowledge from coworkers,
(b) to admit mistakes, (c) to have the desire to learn, and (d) to eliminate any barriers in
knowledge exchange. Participant OL3 stated that everyone had a common goal of a safe
environment in which he or she could share knowledge for project success and team
success, as opposed to individual success.
The output of data for RQ2 allowed for leaders, managers, and subordinates to
change their behavior and become active players to nurture the organizational culture.
This has elements of knowledge exchange and the collaborative sharing of new
knowledge. The effect of leadership on culture in the aerospace industry is an openness
to others’ ideas, listening to idea generators, pushing ideas forward, and making sure that
they are followed through.
Conclusion for RQ3. How can organizational leaders improve their leadership
skills for leading aging workforces in the aerospace manufacturing industry? (IQ#4 &
IQ#7; Theme 2) Leaders and managers should have the skills and knowledge to develop
a climate that demands creativity, agility, and openness to new ideas (Hamer, 2010;
O’Dell & Hubert, 2011). The summaries in the data analysis of theme 2 suggest that
130
creating an organizational environment, supporting a healthy climate, and nurturing a
culture of knowledge-sharing depend on the leader’s ability to learn constantly and grow
professionally. The participants’ responses shared similar sentiments, keywords, and
experiences regarding: work security, talent management, an attitude of openness, new
ideas, management commitment, encouragement, reward, and support for sharing their
operational knowledge. Participant OL2 stated that the leaders of his or her organization
assured people of their survival if they are sharing new knowledge, and if they are going
to contribute to this environment.
Participants stated that in the workplace they engage in knowledge-intensive
work, and that they as the knowledge carriers would act more effectively if the leadership
would create a supportive environment. The outcome for RQ 3 indicated that an
organizational environment must show open boundaries where purpose, procedure, and
an action guide are used for the knowledge flow to and from the knowledge transmitters
(i.e., the source of knowledge and the recipient of knowledge).
Conclusion for RQ4. How are leadership practices used to establish a work
environment that values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers?
(IQ#5 & IQ#9; Theme 4) The participants’ responses about leadership styles indicated
that 26% were shared, 26% were mixed, 20% were transformational, 14% were team, and
7% to innovative and servant. Theme Four indicates that climate has an effect on how
employees follow the examples of the leadership and the management teams. The
participants stated that an environment has many ways to support the workforce, such as
being open, inclusive, safe, creative, and comfortable. The participants concluded that
the most important asset of an organization is a knowledgeable workforce. They stated
131
that the knowledge capital the knowledge creators own is in their competencies, ideas,
expertise, skills, thoughts, know-how, and contextual awareness. The majority of
participants concluded that the process of sharing knowledge shall be rewarded,
supported, and celebrated, and the practices help recognize and promote tacit knowledge
in them.
Participant OL10 stated, “An expectation from senior management that the older
workforce holding the knowledge, commits the time in their day, to work with and
mentor younger employees, and spend time specifically to do knowledge sharing or
training.” Leaders will affect innovation and creativity if they deliberately foster a
business climate that supports creative thinking. If they do that, they will be successful
(OL5). The outcome of RQ4 was the leadership practices for establishing a work
environment that values the past, present, and future contributions of older workers
included a focus on the people, willingness and interest in trying new ideas, making these
a part of their norms, behavior, beliefs, and ritual.
Conclusion for RQ5: What is an organizational strategy to attract, develop, and
retain an aging workforce? (IQ#6; Theme 6) Knowledge management strategies that
foster a learning-orientation culture affect the retention of knowledge workers and their
engagement in knowledge creation, acquisition, capture, sharing, and retention (Nelson &
McCann, 2010). The challenges of the manufacturing industry are attracting fresh talent
out of college and ensuring that operational knowledge is captured and transferred to the
digital native generation effectively (Davidson, 2013). Knowledge management requires
a collective desire of leaders, managers, and subordinates to foster a knowledge-sharing
culture that facilitates and encourages the creation, storing, sharing, and utilization of
132
critical knowledge. Theme Six specified that knowledge-retention strategies are most
successful when employees have time for them and includes these keys: managers
remove barriers and pursue teamwork along with an environment of openness, learning,
sharing ideas, and knowledge availability; leaders also install systems of mentorship,
good hiring principles, and pairings of knowledge transmitters with receivers.
A review of the literature revealed that talent management is a competitive
priority for organizations with aging workforces and that companies in which workers
feel valued, recognized, appreciated, and supported may have higher retention rates
(Calo, 2008; Tolbize, 2008). An effective knowledge transfer requires a cultural change
that stimulates knowledge sharing (Calo, 2008). Multifaceted strategies are needed to
encourage those approaching retirement age to engage in new ways, retain employees
with critical skills, knowledge, and relationships (Bragg, 2011). The transfer of
knowledge is an extensive and complex process. In enabling this process, the knowledge
carriers need to act when leadership attempts to encourage the employees to identify,
store, share, and use codified knowledge throughout the organization. Participant OL3
stated the following:
Diverse teams are without saying. In that sense, focusing on generational gaps,
really allowing mentorship opportunities and allowing the exiting generation; the
baby boomer generation through mentoring and maybe some knowledge sharing
teaming events. Exit [retiring], while sharing their knowledge and trying to
capture that knowledge through that.
One of the most important business needs for the aerospace knowledge
management team is the retention of knowledge and experience when employees are
133
abandoning their positions (Bragg, 2011; Haider, 2009; Henard & McFadyen, 2008).
The outcome of RQ5 was that strategy is needed to improve the design of knowledge
transfer programs, processes, and systems. The participants acknowledged that the cross-
generational knowledge transfer requires the cultivation of a knowledge-sharing culture
and that leadership’s awareness of the multigenerational workforce in the workplace.
Conclusion for Central Research Question (CRQ). What knowledge and skills
do leaders need to develop an effective, knowledge-sharing culture in organization?
(IQ#1 & IQ#8; Theme 3) Theme Three indicated that the knowledge-sharing culture was
affected by many factors in the organizations: policies, procedures, environment,
attitudes, team dynamics, management, and leadership. Management of the
organizational knowledge leads to sustainability, profitability, and ongoing organizational
effectiveness. The participants identified the best practices to keep an asset – the
knowledge carriers – inside the organizational boundaries, and stated it is achieved in
leadership and management development, continuous employee learning, and strategic
alignment to organizational objectives.
Policies. Organizational policies that support the knowledge carriers in
transferring a critical knowledge among and between them are needed. Theme Six
included the finding that knowledge-retention strategies have effects on: systems of
mentorship, good hiring principles, and pairings of knowledge transmitters with
receivers. Participants stated, if knowledge is not captured then organization memory
experiences a loss of critical knowledge. Replacing its value takes additional time and
cost, as well as assigning a talented employee to do that. The participant stated that an
effective organization, a competitive enterprise, needs policies and processes for
134
supporting the knowledge management strategies to select, store, and actualize a critical
knowledge in suitable forms for re-usage. Participant OL12 concluded that hiring the
next generation of right people is very important.
Procedures. The Baby Boomer generation is nearing retirement. These workers
are knowledge carriers, skilled experts and superior leaders, managers with experience,
knowledgeable engineers, aging professionals, and smart employees. As they retire the
demand for knowledge preservation and transfer will increase. The participants
mentioned that allowing employees to act autonomously may lead to the generation of
new ideas, creative thinking, and learning from mistakes, knowledge exchange and
sharing, innovative activities, and unexpected opportunities. The authors stated that
organizations may experience a burst in human and organizational productivity by
delegating leadership tasks and responsibilities to the extent that employees are allowed
to deploy all of their talents and knowledge (Kaafarani & Stevenson, 2011; Leonard &
Waldman, 2007; Rubenstein, 2005).
Environment. Participant OL10 stated that an open environment includes a group
of people (teaming) who are willing to learn. The knowledge management (KM) process
includes these stages: search, obtain/monitor/explore, produce/use, store, update,
transfer/share, control, and return for the newest inputs. The KM process requires users
to move critical knowledge through the transitional stages. They are affected by the
culture of knowledge sharing and leadership and management teams nurture that
environment. According to the participants’ perceptions and experiences, as summarized
in theme 4, an environment has many ways to support the workforce, such as: being
open, inclusive, safe, creative, and comfortable. Several authors suggested that when the
135
leadership style is employee-oriented, innovative, participative, and transformational, it is
especially effective (Kieu, 2010; Tetenbaum & Laurence, 2011).
Attitudes. The leaders, managers, and subordinates, as the knowledge carriers,
must feel empowered to use their skills, experiences, and expertise autonomously. The
autonomous workload helps the knowledge carriers to unlock their talent and creative
thinking in ways to solve problems, generate novel ideas, and increase the value of their
knowledge. The knowledge carriers have an attitude that changes on individual levels
and requires changes in a basic manner on the part of the whole organization. Participant
OL14 stated, “The company recognizes the people with experience and gives them the
power to share knowledge through communications with the other people that are getting
involved with the building such a knowledge-based experience.”
The tribal learning environment within the aerospace industry is unique to the
design of groups, teams, units, programs, systems, centers, and organizations. Those
complexities in the interactions between leaders, managers, and subordinates provide
pathways to respect diversity in the workplace and new patterns of cognitions and
behavior. It is a significant statement by the participants that they seek leadership
practices that are intolerant of new ideas, challenging ideas, innovative thinking, and
conflicts.
Team dynamics. Participant OL13 stated, “To maintain open communication
during meetings, communication between employees and management. By encouraging
that, you really need to empower people, reward them and nurture them.” The
participants mentioned that knowledge-intensive activities are best when working in
cross-functional, diverse, and empowered teams (OL1 & OL13). The management team
136
removes any barriers to knowledge access that affect employee knowledge-sharing. The
barriers mentioned by participants include culture, people, processes, and information
technology. The team dynamic depends on open communication between members in
sharing knowledge, ideas generations, challenging processes, and taking a risk to learn
and grow. Participant OL12 stated that information technology is helpful in retiring old
knowledge and exchanging it for new knowledge.
Teams are where knowledge transfer occurs between knowledge carriers and
receivers. The knowledge carriers’ expertise can be transferred on explicit and implicit
levels. The participants stated that the explicit transfer included presentations, lessons
learned, story-telling, and project reflections, whereas implicit transfer included
mentorship in a face-to-face environment, personal conversations, and learning by
traveling side-by-side. The multigenerational workforce – including leaders, managers,
and subordinates – in the knowledge economy requires a dimensional shift. They
appreciate employee uniqueness in the context of cultural differences.
Management. Knowledge management requires the active participation of the
management team on operational, tactical, and strategic levels. In an environment of
complexity, managers are needed who can identify ways to unlock the creative potential
of a multigenerational workforce. System thinking requires thinking in terms of
processes, relationships, and interconnection (Laszlo, 2012). The aerospace industry is
complex; cross-functional teams and multigenerational employees actively perform work
with individual diversity and their own perceptions, experiences, and expertise. The
participants stated that their perceptions were that management served as the source to
help get their work done. The current multigenerational workforce requires managers
137
with the skills and knowledge to serve emergent workers whose desires, goals,
motivators, and plans are different. The participants concluded that organizational
competitive abilities depend on knowledge capital, knowledge “know-how,”
competencies, field experts, knowledge carriers, and processes.
Leadership. Leadership is described as events, cues, and triggers. In complex
adaptive theory, leadership is described as a complex dynamic process that emerges in
the interactive spaces between people and ideas. A leader’s role is to create a healthy
climate of knowledge sharing and a supportive environment that motivates the
knowledge carriers to engage in an exchange of their knowledge, information, and
experiences. The analysis of the data showed that the participants who said their
motivation is work meaningfulness are participating in developing solutions to new
challenges and are encouraged to have more social interactions.
The authors argued that the organizational process of changing culture depends on
a leader’s ability to select, recruit, train, socialize, orient, reward, and lead people
(Chatman & Cha, 2003; Jaruselski & Katzenbach, 2012). A leader’s role is in the
cultivation of a learning culture that encourages employee inquisitiveness, creativity,
learning from error, openness to sharing knowledge, collaboration, and colleague support
(Nelson & McCann, 2010). Participant OL11 mentioned the following:
I think that is a big barrier we see when you try to nurture that [culture in sharing
knowledge], and then the person who has been around 30 years is just going to,
Oh, you know what? Does not matter then. Okay. Not going to worry about it.
Theme Two suggested that leadership competencies in creating an organizational
environment, supporting a healthy climate, and nurturing a culture of knowledge sharing
138
depend on the leader’s ability to learn constantly and grow professionally. The
participants expressed their beliefs in valuing teamwork, novelty, socialization, and in
seeking leadership as the ability of a person to influence, motivate, enable others to
contribute toward a culture of knowledge-sharing. The participants were from the
Traditional, Baby Boomer, Generation X groups, and they all recognized that human
talent must be acquired, nurtured, and leveraged.
Implications and Significance of the Findings
The results of the research included new insights into manufacturing leadership
practices implemented to capture the operational knowledge of the retirement-aged
workforce, leading to an increased competitive advantage. The manufacturing industry
requires leaders who possess knowledge and practice skills in nurturing a knowledge-
sharing culture, who can adapt to changes in an organizational culture, and who lead
knowledgeable workforces to succeed and compete (Isaksen & Akkermans, 2011;
Jaruzelski & Katzenbach, 2012; Heskett, Sasser, & Wheeler, 2008; Mosley 2010; Oster,
2010).
The general problem guiding the qualitative study was that aging workforces
depart from organizations, taking with them the operational knowledge needed for the
next generation to become knowledgeable workers in the aerospace manufacturing
industry. The specific problem addressed in the study is that the lack of manufacturing
leadership practices that capture the operational knowledge of retiring-age employees
may lead to a decreased competitive advantage in the aerospace manufacturing industry.
The focus of the Central Research Question (CRQ) was on gaining the newest knowledge
about organizational leadership and the knowledge carriers’ competencies in developing
139
an effective knowledge-sharing culture. The aim was to discover the elements of a
culture supportive of creating a healthy climate and an environment for knowledge
sharing within the multigenerational workforce.
The CRQ and related interview questions and themes resulted in insights from
leader, manager, and subordinate knowledge carriers regarding the state of the current
cultures in the companies of their employment. The emergent themes identified within
the data revealed that the best leadership practices are in leadership development,
employee development, and talent management. The participants stated that retaining
aerospace industry status requires business practices to identify, capture, store, and reuse
knowledge asset carriers. Leaders’ and managers’ competencies in building an open
environment increase employees’ comfort level, as they share their knowledge in groups,
teams, and project settings. The knowledge is information that is contextual, relevant,
and actionable. In the knowledge economy of the 21st century, the knowledge carriers
trade their knowledge. Leadership uses the events, cues, and triggers to drive
organizational changes. A leader’s role is to create an environment where events happen.
The followers observe leaders’ behaviors and learn how to act on their own.
Value creation in the organization comes from having a smart workforce;
knowledgeable employees are the knowledge carriers of critical organizational
knowledge. Those events lead to the formation of the links through which the
organization receives value, innovation, and a competitive advantage. Leaders use links
to build up smart workforces with a systems thinking mindset and capability to operate in
a complex working environment. They are capable of filtering data from an event, using
140
the newest information to convert it into unique knowledge that helps them make smart
decisions and add value to teams, units, departments, and organizations.
Using the NVivo 10 feature of the word frequency with an option of similarity,
the result showed that “events” has a count of 1658 and a weighted percentage of 0.88.
Only two other words were above the events, “change” and “acting,” which respectively
had counts of 2703 and 2075 and weighted percentages 1.44 and 1.03. The participants
stated that changes, acting, and events were important elements in performing effectively
at the workplace.
Participants may change their behaviors and attitudes at the workplace when they
see an example of leadership in action, or a business climate that provides workplace
comfort, a safe environment, tolerance to new ideas, and challenging processes. The
study involved a theory triangulation. Identifying theory in the research design was the
strategy employed to address external validity. The two theories framing the proposed
study were the Complexity Leadership and the Complex Adaptive Systems. Complexity
leadership theory and complex adaptive system comprise suitable models to create
complex adaptive behavior for an emergent workforce in an increasingly complex,
uncertain, and changing world. The complex leader seeks to spawn emergent behavior
and creative surprises (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey,
2007). Furthermore, managers act to enable informal emergence and to coordinate the
contexts within which it occurs (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Uhl-Bein et al. (2007) informed
that managers who enact enabling leadership are more likely to produce an emergent
order.
141
Leaders promoting diversity in hiring practices support the diversity of recruits’
skills and preferences. The participants, as knowledge carriers, enablers of the change
processes, and self-leading workforce, all stated that leadership exists in constant
interaction with the whole organization. The aerospace industry operates with
knowledge-intensive activities and those activities at the workplace involve individuals in
groups, teams, and projects/programs with diverse perceptions, experiences, and
expertize. As a demand for systematic knowledge exchange, the aerospace industry
requires employees who engage in the transmission of their knowledge and experiences
within members of groups, units, teams, projects, and programs.
Leadership should introduce a new mode of operating to nurture an environment
in which employees becomes idea generators. The change process leads to positive
changes and produce new patterns of cognition and behavior in the knowledge carriers.
Adaptive leadership is an interactive event in which knowledge, action preferences, and
behaviors change, thereby provoking an organization to become more adaptive
(Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion Seers, Orton, & Schreiber, 2006; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).
Lichtenstein et al. (2006) stated that leaders’ behaviors can lead to the emergence of a
new order by disrupting existing patterns through embracing uncertainty and creating
controversy. As part of recommendation to leadership seeking to add the values to
knowledge-intensive organizations, the following model was developed to illustrate the
Hierarchy of Value Creation in the knowledge spectrum. The event is the first stage in
the hierarchy of value creation, which is shown in Figure 4.
142
Figure 4. The hierarchy of value creation.
Leadership practices in the aerospace industry grow the leaders’ and managers’
competencies by nurturing a process of knowledge preservation and transfer. The
knowledge preservation process once guarded critical knowledge against losses and
employees could re-use knowledge on demand. Organizational knowledge is categorized
into three categories: (a) tacit, (b) codified to reduce complexity, and (c) encapsulated for
the preservation of complexity. The knowledge carriers are the source of tacit knowledge
residing in individual brains, and if it is not codified into an explicit form of information,
it can be vanish when the employee leaves the company.
In this study, the participants raised concern over the lack of time for them to do
tasks to capture knowledge and nurture a knowledge-sharing culture. The existence of
143
the knowledge-management system in an organization was mentioned by only two
participants. The following manufacturing leadership practices were revealed through a
review of the literature: (a) leadership and management support, (b) organizational
climate, (c) knowledge-sharing culture, (d) knowledge preservation strategies, and (e)
ingenuity of emergent workforces. Participants in the study mentioned that these
practices are important elements of a healthy organizational environment. Outcome from
the research data indicated a knowledge-sharing culture signficantly affected employees’
behavior regarding sharing their knowledge if they received assurances of no personal
risk of becoming less valuable and threatening their job security. The data analysis
shows that the participants seek an advantage by sharing their expertise, skills, and
techniques with the emergent workforce. This builds their self-esteem and motivates
them to perform their work more effectively.
An effective knowledge-sharing culture is one that is nurtured by all members of
the organization. The participants stated that one-on-one and side-by-side approaches of
knowledge sharing and transferring were the most effective. The manager’s role is to
identify the knowledge carriers and then pair them with capable, motivated knowledge
recipients. A culture of knowledge-sharing motivates the aging workforce to unlock the
individual creativity of the emergent workforce. Elements of openness, sharing
information and ideas, listening to ideas, creative behaviors, and values are formed. A
summary of leadership practices that affect the process of knowledge preservation and
transfer are included in Appendix M.
144
Recommendations for the Future Research
The aim of this study was to identify the leadership skills needed to build a
manufacturing culture and environment of knowledge sharing across generations,
including cross-functional communication. Organizations may experience a burst in
human and organizational productivity by delegating leadership tasks and responsibilities
to the extent that employees can deploy their talents and knowledge (Kaafarani &
Stevenson, 2011; Leonard & Waldman, 2007; Rubenstein, 2005). The finding of the
research determined a guideline for leaders and managers in the American aerospace
industry and indicated the value of building an army of knowledgeable workers to
generate new ideas, reap innovative performance, create value, and maintain a
competitive advantage.
Multiple insights were gleaned from the findings of this collective case,
qualitative, research study. Six core themes and invariant constituents emerged from the
analysis of the data, and leaders and managers may benefit from studying these themes.
As such, several opportunities for future research emerged. The most obvious would be
to develop and refine a process of knowledge preservation and transfer as well as
complexity leadership development for an autonomous workforce. A second
recommendation would be to conduct a study of leadership styles in the aerospace
industry that influence the norms and behaviors of employees using a knowledge
management program.
A third suggestion for the future research is the examination of the emergent
workforce in relations to cultural variables to participant’s originality – locals, abroad,
and immigrants. The participants’ cultural differences have an effect on organizational
145
culture and perceptions of adaptation to the organizational environment affect them. A
fourth opportunity exists in the area of examining the organizational environment
characteristics on formation the employees’ behaviors and norms in knowledge sharing.
A final area for future research concerns leadership’s competency in creating a business
climate that encourages the knowledge carriers to share their knowledge without having
negative thoughts about job insecurity.
Scope and Limitations
The limitations of this study center on the transferability of data. Specifically,
this study's findings are limited to the responses of 15 participants employed in four
companies in the Puget Sound region of the state of Washington. The participants
identified as the knowledge carriers include one from the Traditional Generation (1922-
1945), 12 from the age of baby boomers (1946-1964), and two from Generation X (1965-
1980). Their answers are based on their experiences. Therefore, this study's findings
would transfer to the perceptions and experiences of the knowledge carriers working in
another organization of the manufacturing industry. The reason for stating that is that the
knowledgeable workforce of the 21st-century economy has the mobility to be
autonomous, smart, self-leading, idea generators, and innovation-driven.
The aerospace industry is knowledge-driven, so the leadership practices used by
leaders, managers, and subordinates can apply to other environments created by
leadership and management teams. Moreover, the findings of this study might provide
the basis for creating an organizational environment that supports the knowledge carriers
in sharing their operational knowledge. This study benefits those knowledge carriers
who want to establish a healthy climate, create an open environment, and nurture the
146
knowledge-sharing culture. Those conditions are needed to support the workforce of any
organization for employees' empowerment with the mindset that they are the driving
forces of innovation.
Another limitation was associated with the data collection efforts that occurred
over six months, and interview scheduling that had to accommodate the work schedule of
the interviewer and participant. An assumption of the study was that participants would
be truthful in their responses in the interview protocol. Furthermore, despite the apparent
honesty of the participants' responses, determining whether their perceptions and
experiences were accurate is impossible. Qualitative analysis delivers generalized results
affecting the reliability of the research method. The thoughtful study design, careful data
collection, and use of NVivo10 for data analysis support the study's internal validity. The
results of this study, based on a sample size, are generalizable to a large population
because the saturation point was achieved by eight participants. The sampling size was
appropriate to achieve data saturation and merging of the core themes for data analysis.
Another limitation was that the current study population sample did not include
the knowledge carriers/recipients of Generations Y (1981-1995) and Z (late 1990s),
which could have produced different study results about their perception of leadership
practices in the organization. These emergent workforces are motivated to perform in
their company with the values of postmodernism that requires the cultural value shifts
(Gratton, 2011; Green, 2007). Generations Y and Z employees stay connected by using
social-media systems to build interpersonal networks (Gratton, 2011). Whereas young
leaders are looking for developing skills and knowledge accumulations, the adult leaders
are seeking for influence and decision making. Leadership developing activities in the
147
aerospace industry play an important role in unlocking individual creativity in the
organizations.
Multigenerational workforce structures create a unique environment for creating
an open system where information and outflow of knowledge benefit the organization
as a competitive advantage. The results might be enriched by selecting participants of all
generations in the interview process. The results of the study can be more accurate,
more easily replicated, and more easily generalized into broader theories and conclusions.
The process of knowledge preservation and transfer is needed in organizations, where
critical and unique knowledge is born and converted into new products, services, and
process innovations.
Summary
Leadership practices including knowledge-retention strategies, knowledge-sharing
culture, organizational environment, organizational practices, and an emergent workforce
in an organization that supports leaders’, managers’, and subordinates’ ingenuity all add
to knowledge in the area of organizational leadership. The study consisted of the newest
understanding of leadership practices in the aerospace manufacturing industry, which are
needed to build a culture that supports openness, inclusions, collaboration, cooperation,
and commitment. Many factors affected knowledge-sharing culture in the organizations:
policies, procedures, environment, attitudes, team dynamics, management, and
leadership. The review of the literature, the data analysis, and the conclusions all
revealed that a multigenerational workforce needs leadership that leads well, for example
by creating events at which the seeds of innovation are planted, or nurturing a climate for
148
a healthy environment where workers share their knowledge without concerns for job
security.
Knowledge is a key commodity in the 21st-century economy. The aerospace
manufacturing industry needs a next-generation smart workforce capable of driving
innovative processes and redesigning the industry’s layout. The knowledge carriers –
leaders, managers, and subordinates – are interconnected in the complexity of
organizational structures, and they are powerful drivers of the industry’s growth. A
knowledge-sharing culture helps knowledge carriers in a complex work environment act
innovatively to add or create new values for their organization.
Chapter 5 identified several areas of future research that emerge from the study.
In summary, the organizational design requires an open boundary and the use of internal
and external knowledge for binding multiple ideas into new processes, procedures, and
policies. The leadership practices that nurture a culture of knowledge-sharing help
knowledge carriers through a mindset paradigm shift to an understanding of workplace
complexity, workforce diversity, and generational differences.
Researcher Reflections
The researcher's interest in conducting this collective case study was to reveal the
best business leadership practices in leading the knowledgeable multigenerational
workforce in the 21st-century economy. During my doctoral studies, I discovered the
newest knowledge about complexities in organizational structures, unique in their
designs, leadership styles, and management talents, as well as the term
"knowledgeable/smart workforce." That was a turning point toward viewing an
organization as a living body with interconnected parts that have purposes, reasons, and
149
functional tasks. I decided to do my research about the knowledgeable workforce and
how it acts as the driving force in organizational innovation. Having stated that, I learned
about chaos theory and how those stand-alone forces are used to create an emergent
order.
Then I decided to conduct a case study by using the qualitative method to
interview real individuals and to collect the data from the “legacy” workers. I did not
recognize that I chose a hard way in doing the research design. Many times during the
writing of this paper, I asked, "Why did I not choose the quantitative method?" It is
much easier just to create a survey, collect and analyze the data, transform into
information, and then provide statistics and conclusions. But the way that I chose was
predetermined; my goal was to talk with the participants who lived through and are
surrounded by the current flows of the information of knowledge's society and economy.
I learned that many leaders and managers are from the Baby Boomer generation,
and they were schooled in the 20th century, so their knowledge is their worthiness. It
was impossible to find participants of Generation Y and Z who would share their
perceptions and knowledge. I am thankful that I had one Traditionalist whose wealth of
living experiences solidified my belief that I was doing a credible study worthy of the
new knowledge to be learned by the readers. During the literature review, I discovered
that the transfer, preservation, and reuse of knowledge is the global task of the authors
from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, the
U.S, the U.K., Vietnam, etc. All those authors raised concerns about the risks of the loss
of critical operational knowledge. It is an issue for leaders and managers at local, state,
national, and international levels.
150
I have learned a great deal through this journey, and I believe that it could be
shorter only when time permitted more focus. It was hard to find a quiet place and to do
just the dissertation paper. We are living in a world of complexities. The chaos creates
new elements for the order to emerge from, and the leaders are emerging to lead the way
toward the newest forms of organizational structure. The knowledge stored in the heads
of creators may be used by them for adding value if it is taken out and stored in an
explicit form as just information. The link is needed to connect all of the knowledge
creators into a wide network of open information in which the outflow of knowledge is
synchronized. I believe the goal that I had on the journey to a doctoral degree was
achieved. I gained the latest knowledge about organizational leadership in an era of open
systems.
151
References
Accenture (2008). Innovation in manufacturing – driving greater returns, predictable
outcomes and market leadership. The Manufacturing Institute, 1-30.
Adams, T. L., & Demaiter, E. I. (2007). Knowledge workers in the new economy: Skill,
flexibility and credentials. Conference Papers. American Sociological
Association, 1-20.
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43. doi: 10.1108/14601069810199131
American Industries Association. (2008, December). A special report: Launching the
21st century American aerospace workforce. Retrieved from
http://www.aia-aerospace.org
Ailin, M., & Lindgren, P. (2008). Conceptualizing strategic innovation leadership for
competitive survival and excellence. Journal of Knowledge Globalization, 1(2),
87-107.
American Visa Bureau. (2013). Aging aerospace industry workforce in the US may
create American visa opportunities for overseas skilled workers. Retrieved from
http://www.visabureau.com/america/news
Andreadis, N. (2009). Learning and organizational effectiveness: A systems perspective.
Performance Improvement, 48(1), 5-11. doi:10.1002/pfi.20043
Arena, M. I. (2009). Understanding large group intervention processes: A complexity
theory perspective. Organization Development Journal, 27(1), 49-64. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197985257?accountid=35812
152
Atkinson, R. D., & Andes, S. (2010). The 2010 State New Economy Index:
Benchmarking economic transformation in the states. The Informational
Technology and Innovation Foundations. Retrieved from
http://www.itif.org/publications/2010-state-new-economy-index
Austin, M. J. (2008). Strategies for transforming human service organizations into
learning organizations: Knowledge management and the transfer of learning.
Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(3-4), 569-596.
doi:10.1080/15433710802084326
Austin, M. J., Claassen, J., Vu, C. M., & Mizrahi, P. (2008). Knowledge management:
Implications for human service organizations. The Haworth Press.
doi:10.1300/J.'î94v05n01.13
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
doi:10.1146/annurev.60.110707.163621
Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive approach to
organization structuring: Where organization design meets organizational
development. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management
Sciences, 11(2), 197-211. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.2.197.12509
Bates, K. A., & Amundson, S. D. (1995). The crucial interrelationship between
manufacturing strategy and organizational culture. Management Science, 41(10),
1565-1581. doi:0025-1909/95/4110/1567S1025
153
Baker, L. (2006). Ten common pitfalls to avoid when conducting qualitative research.
British Journal of Midwifery, 14(9), 530-531.
doi:10.12968/bjom.2006.14.9.21794
Baquero, T., & Dudek, C. (2009). Preserving knowledge to preserve the environment:
Applying knowledge continuity management strategies while meeting
environmental goals. Project Performance Corporation, 1-8. Retrieved from
http://www.ppc.com
Baxter, G., Connolly, T., & Stansfield, M. (2009). How can organizations learn: An
information systems development perspective? Learning Inquiry, 3(1), 25-46.
doi:10.1007/s11519.009.0038.8
Beard, M., & Zuniga, L. (2006). Achieving the right flavor: A study of designing a
cultural integration process. The Psychologist Journal, 9(1), 13-25.
doi:10.1207/s15503461tpmj0901_3
Bel, R. (2010). Leadership and innovation: Learning from the best. Global Business &
Organizational Excellence, 29(2), 47-60. doi:10.1002/joe.20308
Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of
Management Review, 33(4). 825-845. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.34421969
Boatman, J., & Wellins, R. S. (2011). Global leadership forecast 2011: Time for a
leadership revolution! Development Dimensions International, Inc., 1-60.
Retrieved from http://www.ddiworld.com/glf2011
Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated
approach to research design, measurement, and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
154
Blanchard, K. (1999). Innovation creation: Six business strategies that build breakthrough
thinking. Association for Quality & Participation, 22(6), 30-32.
Bogers, M., & West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: Strategic utilization of
open and user innovation. Creativity & Innovation Management, 21(1), 61-75.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00622.x
Bragg, M. L. (2011). Knowledge transfer in multigenerational organizations. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Maryland University College). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3499364).
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Bright, D. (2009). Appreciative inquiry and positive organizational scholarship: A
philosophy of practice for turbulent times. OD Practitioner, 41(3), 2-7.
Brocato, B., Jelen, J., Schmidt, T., & Gold, S.T. (2011). Leadership conceptual
ambiguities: A post-positivistic critique. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 35-
50. doi:10.1002/jls.20203
Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). GDP by industry, survey of current business
2006-2009. Retrieved from http://www.bea.gov
Burreson, M. (2013, July). Workforce development and training. Retrieved from
http://www.edtacomapierce.org
Calabrese, F. A. (2010). Evolution of twenty-first century knowledge workers. On the
Horizon, 18(3), 160-170. doi:10.1108/10748121011072618
Calhoon, M. (2011). Washington State’s aerospace business case. Washington State
Department of Commerce. 1-33. Retrieved from
http://www.choosewashington.com
155
Calo, T. J. (2008). Talent management in the era of the aging workforce: The critical role
of knowledge transfer. Public Personnel Management, 37(4), 403-416.
doi:10.1177/009102600803700403
Campbell, B.A., Coff, R., & Kryscynski, D. (2012). Rethinking sustained competitive
advantage from human capital. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 376-395.
doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0276
Carey, D., Hill, C., & Kahin, B. (2012). Strengthening innovation in the United States.
OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1001, OECD Publishing.
doi:10.1787/5k8zl62hxmf6-en
Carleton, K. (2011). How to motivate and retain knowledge workers in organizations: A
review of the literature. International Journal of Management, 28(2), 459-468.
Carol, A. R. (1986). Corporate culture: The last frontier of control. Journal of
Management Studies, 23(3), 277-297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1986.tb00955.x
Carter-Steward, J. (2009). Motivating the 21st century worker: A case study of Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs as it applies to the current generationally diverse workforce
(Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 35372705).
Chand, S., & Davis, J. (2014). What is smart manufacturing? TIME Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.rockwellautomation.com/resources/downloads
Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California
Management Review, 45(3), 20-34. doi:10.2307/41166186
Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation. Research Technology Management, 55(4), 20-
27. doi:10.5437/08956308X5504085
156
Christensen, L., Johnson, R., & Turner, L. (2011). Research methods, design, and
analysis. Coursesmart eTextbook. Pearson. ISBN-13: 9780205753048
Christopian, F. D. (2008). Organizational culture as a mediating factor on knowledge
management systems in the aerospace and defense industry. (Doctoral
dissertation, Regent University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database (UMI No. 3309286).
Chukwuemeka, I. C. (2012). The relationship between organizational culture and quality
of communication in project management (Doctoral dissertation). University of
Phoenix. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No.
3510923).
Conceicao, S. C., & Altman, B. A. (2011). Training and development process and
organizational culture change. Organizational Development Journal, 29(1), 33-
43.
Costa, R., Lima, C., Antunes, J., Figueiras, P., & Parada, V. (2010). Knowledge
management capabilities supporting collaborative working environments in a
project oriented context. Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual
Capital, 208-216.
Country Commerce. (2011, May). United Stated of America. The Economist Intelligence
Unit. Retrieved from http://www.eiu.com
Council on Competitiveness. (2012, February 28-29). Report on the Unites States
manufacturing competitiveness initiative: Dialogue on next generation supply
networks and logistics. Georgia Institute of Technology, 1-13.
157
Clarke, T. (2001). The knowledge economy. Education + Training, 43(4/5), 189-196.
doi:10.1108/00400910110399184
Clawson, J. G. (2006). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (3 rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Parsons.
Creamer, W. P., & Amaria, P. (2012, July). The effect of business transformation an
innovation economics on sustainable corporate competitive advantage. Research
in Business & Economics Journal, 6, 1-34.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. London, UK: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Creth, S. (2000). Optimizing organization design for the future. Educause Quarterly,
23(1), 32-38. ISSN-1528-5324
Crough, D. (2012). The identification and influence of organizational subcultures on
organizational outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3503885).
158
Dahler-Larsen, P. (1994, January). Corporate culture and morality: Durkheim-inspired
reflections in the limits of corporate culture. Journal of Management Studies,
31(1), 1-18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00329.x
Dagupta, P., & Dodge, W. (2010). High Fliers: Creating the talent, leadership, culture
and organization capabilities to ... the aerospace and defense industry. Accenture.
Retrieved from http://www.accenture.com
Dalakoura, A. (2010). Differentiating leader and leadership development: A collective
framework for leadership development. Journal of Management Development,
29(5), 432-441. doi:10.1108/02621711011039204
Darling, J. R. (2009). Organization development in an era of socioeconomic change: A
focus on the key to successful management leadership. Organization
Development Journal, 27(2), 9-26.
Darr, A. (2007). The knowledge worker and the future skill demands on the US
workforce. The National Academies' Center for Education on Research Evidence
Related to Future Skill Demands, Washington.
Davidson, M. (2013). Bridging the information gap between the aging workforce and
Generation Y's digital natives. Industry Week. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1434387290?accountid=458
Davis, J., Edgar, T., Porter-DuPont, J., Bernaden, J., & Sarli, M. (2012, January 3). Smart
manufacturing, manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance.
FOCAPO, 1-18. Retrieved from http://www.smart-process-
manufacturing.ucla.edu/presentations-and-reports/spm-
publications/FOCAPOSMLC2012v10.pdf
159
Davis, E. B., Kee, J., & Newcomer, K. (2010). Strategic transformation process: Toward
purpose, people, process and power. Organization Management Journal, 7(1), 66-
80. doi:10.1057/omj.2010.6
De Scousa, M., & Dierendonck, D. (2010). Knowledge workers, servant leadership
and the search for meaning in knowledge-driven organizations. On the Horizon,
18(3), 230-239. doi:10.1108/10748121011072681
Deloitte (2012a). Fostering an innovative culture: Sustaining competitive advantage.
Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com
Deloitte (2012b). 2013 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index. Retrieved from
http://www.deloitte.com
Deloitte (2012c). The Aerospace and defense industry in the U.S.: A financial and
economic impact study. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com
Deloitte (2011). Boiling point? The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing. A Report on Talent
in the Manufacturing Industry. Retrieved from www.deloitte.com
Deloitte (2009). People and profitability: A time for change. Retrieved from
http://www.deloitte.com
Deloitte, & U. S. Council on Competitiveness. (2010, June). Global Manufacturing
Competitiveness Index. Retrieved from
http://www.deloitte.com/globalcompetitiveness
Deloris, M. (2013). A case study of the knowledge transfer practices from the perspective
of highly experience engineers in the aerospace industry. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of La Verne). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
databases. (UMI No. 3571005).
160
Denney, J. (2011). Priming the innovation pump: America need more scientists and
engineers. Defense AT & L. 20-24.
Dervitsiotos, K. N. (2010). A framework for the assessment of an organization’s
innovation excellence. Total Quality Management, 21(9), 901-918.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2010.487702
Divakaran, A., Mani, M., & Post, L. (2012). Best practices for meeting manufacturing‘s
global talent challenge. Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com
Dul, J., Ceylan, C., & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers creativity and the role of
the physical work environment. Human Resources Management, 50(6), 715-734.
doi:10.1002/hrm/20454
Edwards, J. R. (2010). A multilevel study of leadership, change-oriented staff, and
propensity for innovation adoption (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian
University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3398150).
Ellis, S. (2005). Knowledge-based working: Intelligent operating for the knowledge age.
Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited.
Engler, J., & Kusiak, A. (2011). Modeling an innovation ecosystem with adaptive agents.
International Journal of Innovation Science, 3(2), 55-68.
doi:10.1260/1757-2223.3.2.55
Epstein, K., & Crown, J. (2008). Globalization bites Boeing. Bloomberg Businessweek.
Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-03-12/globalization-
bites-boeing
161
Ettlie, J, & Rosenthal, S. (2012). Service innovation in manufacturing. Journal of Service
Management, 23(3), 440-454.
Eversole, B., Venneberg, D., & Crowder, C. (2012). Creating a flexible organizational
culture to attract and retain talented workforce across generations. Advanced in
Developing Human, 14(4), 607-625. doi:10.1177/1523422312455612
Farr, J. V., & Brazil, D. M. (2009). Leadership skills development for engineers.
Engineering Management Journal, 21(1), 3-8. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/208947306?accountid=35812
Felin, T., Zenger, T. R., & Tomsik, J. (2009). Knowledge economy: Emerging
organizational forms, missing microfoundations, and key considerations for
managing human capital. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 555-570.
doi:10.10002/hrm.20299
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2),
117-140.
Fisher, E. A. (2009). Motivation and leadership in social work management: A review of
theories and related studies. Administration in Social Work, 33(4), 347-67. ISSN:
0364-3107
Forbes, D. (2011). Toward a unified model of human motivation. Review of General
Psychology, 15(2), 85-98. doi:10.1037/a0023483
Frick, D. E. (2011). Motivating the knowledge worker. A Publication of the Defense
Acquisition University, 369-397. Retrieved from http://www.dau.mil
162
Gold, S. (2013). The competitive edge: The manufacturing industry: Looking back to
move forward. Industry Week, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400604621?accountid=35812
Gold, S. (2012). Providing 21st-century skills for 21st-century manufacturing. Industry
Week, 261(3), 8.
Goncalves, M. (2012). Knowledge tornado: Bridging the corporate knowledge gap (2nd
ed.). ASME Press, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY. doi:10.1115/1.859957
Gonzaga, S. Y. (2009). Exploring knowledge exchange between senior and future
leaders: A grounded-theory study (Order No. 3405039). Available from
Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text. (250866685).
Gratton, L. (2011). Workplace 2025-what will it look like? Organizational Dynamics, 40,
246-254. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.07.002
Green, D. D. (2008). Value transformation in 21st century organizations. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict, 12(2), 95-102.
Green, D. D. (2007, January). Leading a postmodern workforce. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 6, 15-26.
Green, D. D., & Roberts, G. E. (2012). Transformational leadership in a postmodern
world: The presidential election of Barack Obama. Academy of Strategic
Management Journal, 11(1), 9-25.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca
163
Guillry, W. A., Harding, C., & Guillory, D. (2011). The FuturePerfect organization –
Driven by quantum leadership. Retrieved from http://www.innovint.com
Gupta, P. (2011). Leading innovation change – The Kotter way. International Journal of
Innovation Science, 3(3), 141-150. doi:10.1260/1757-2223.3.3.141
Haider, S. (2009). The organizational knowledge iceberg: An empirical investigation.
Knowledge & Process Management, 16(2), 74-84. doi:10.1002/kpm.326
Hamer, S. (2010). Developing an innovation ecosystem: A framework for accelerating
knowledge transfer. Journal of Management & Marketing in Healthcare, 3(4),
248-255. doi:10.1179/175330310X12736578177607
Haneberg, L. (2009). How leaders can optimize organizational culture. MPI Consulting,
1-8. Retreated from http://managementperformance.com
Hanson, W. R., & Ford, R (2010). Complexity leadership in healthcare: Leader network
awareness. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(4), 6587-6596.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.069
Haudan, J. (2011, Spring). Changing a corporate culture by changing leaders’ behaviors.
American Management Association, 11-13.
Hazy, J. K., Goldstein, J. A., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2007). Complex systems leadership
theory: New perspectives from complexity science on social and organizational
effectiveness. ISCE Publishing. ISBN13: 978-0-9791688-6-4
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization, Journal of Psychology, 21(1),
107-112. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
164
Hemphill, T. (2013). Policy debate: The Obama innovation strategy: How will it
influence US business innovation and R&D management? Innovation:
Management, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 260-270.
doi:10.5172/impp.2013.15.3.260
Hemphill, T., & Perry, M. (2012). A U.S. manufacturing strategy for the 21st century:
What policies yield national sector competitiveness? Business Economics, 47(2),
126-147. doi:10.1057/be.2012.4
Henard, D. H., & McFadyen, M. A. (2008). Making knowledge workers more creative.
Research Technology Management, 51(2), 40-46.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Wheeler, J. (2008). Ten reasons to design a better
corporate culture. Working Knowledge, 1-2. Harvard Business School. Retrieved
from http://www.hbswkhbs.edu
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 1(2), 81-99. doi:10.1007/BF01733682
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 42-63. doi:0090-2616/80/0014-0042
Hogan, T. (2011, August). An overview of the knowledge economy, with a focus on
Arizona. Arizona State University, 1-34. Retrieved from
http://www.wpcarey.asu.edu/seid
Holtshouse, D. (2010). Knowledge work 2020: Thinking ahead about knowledge work.
On the Horizon, 18(3), 193-203. doi:10.1108/10748121011072645
Honore, J. (2009). Employee motivation. Consortium Journal of Hospitality & Tourism,
14(1), 63-75.
165
Hopen, D. (2010, April). The changing role and practices of successful leaders. The
Journal for Quality and Participations, 4-9.
Houghton, J. D., & DiLielo, T. C. (2010). Leadership development: The key to unlocking
individual creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organizational Development
Journal, 31(3), 230-245. doi:10.1108/01437731011039343
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2010, November). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Sage. doi:10.1177/104973205276687
Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2011). Leading for innovation: Direct and indirect
influences. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3), 248-265.
doi:10.1177/1523422311424263
IBM Corporation. (2012). Aerospace and defense: An industry in transition. Retrieved
from http://ibm.com/aerodefense
Ilinitch, A. Y., D’Aveni, R.A., & Lewin, A. Y. (1996). New organizational forms and
strategies for managing in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science,
7(3), 211-220. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.3.211
Inabinett, J. M. (2010). Employee tenure: A quantitative correlation study of employee’s
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3446270).
Isaksen, S. T., & Akkermans, H. J. (2011). Creative climate: A leadership lever for
innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3), 161-187.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01425.x
166
Jaruzelski, B., & Katzenbach, J. (2012, March). Building a culture that energizes
innovation. FinancialExecutive, 32-35. Retrieved from
http://www.financialexecutives.org
Jo, B-K. (2010). Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: The roles of
perceived organizational learning culture, leader–member exchange quality, and
turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 69-85.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.20031
Joiner, B. (2009). Creating a culture of agile leaders: A development approach. People &
Strategy, 32(4), 28-35.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change (6th ed.). San Francisco:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Kaafarani, B., & Stevenson, J. (2011, May-June). Breaking away: An innovation model
for sustainable growth. Research & Technology Management, 44-51.
doi:10.5437/08953608X5403008
Kahin, B., & Hill, C. (2010, Spring). United States: The need for continuity. Issues in
Science and Technology, 51-60.
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work motivation: Advancing theory and impact. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1), 118-127.
doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.01120.x
Kanter, R. M. (1983, October). Change masters and intricate architecture of corporate
culture change. Management Review, 18-27.
Katz, J. (2012). Report: Manufacturers can’t innovate without talent. Retrieved from
http://www.industryweek.com
167
Katzenbach, J. R., Steffen, I., & Kronley, C. (2012/July-August). Cultural change that
sticks: Start with what’s already working. Harvard Business Review, 110-117.
Kieu, H. I. (2010). Leadership styles and organizational performance: A predictive
Analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3442746).
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). John Wiley &
Sons.
Knilans, G. (2008). Creating a culture of health: The new corporate mandate.
Employment Relations Today, 35(3), 35-41. doi:10.1002/ert.20211
Lacono, J. B. (2009). Research methods - a case example of participant observation. The
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(1), 39-46.
Lakshman, C. (2009). Organizational knowledge leadership. Developing Journal, 30(4),
338-361.
Laszlo, K. (2012). From systems thinking to systems being: The embodiment of
evolutionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Transformation & Social
Change, 9(2), 95-108. doi:10.1386/jots.9.2.95_1
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2009). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Lefter, V., Manolescu, A., Cristian, V. M., & Ramona, S. P. (2009). Employees’
motivation theories developed at an international level. Annals of the University of
Oradea, Economic Science Series, 18(4), 324-328.
168
Legrand, C., & Weiss, D. S. (2011, July/August). How leaders can close the innovative
gap. Ivey Business Journal, 75(4). Retrieved from
http://www.weissinternational.ca
Leonard, J. A., & Waldman, C. (2007). An empirical model of the sources of innovation
in the U.S. manufacturing sector. Business Economics, 42(4), 33-45.
doi:10.2145/20070404
Lewin, K. (1951). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future
directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75-93.
doi:10.5465/AMP.2011.59198451
Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. Seers, A., Orton, J., & Schreiber, C. (2006).
Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex
adaptive systems. Complexity & Organization, 8(4), 2-12.
Livingston, D., & Lusin, J. (2009). A prescriptive hybrid model of leadership:
Complexity leadership theory and authentic leadership theory. In The Proceedings
of the 5th European Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance:
Hellenic American University and the Atexcelixi Conference Centre, Athens,
Greece, 5-6 November 2009. Academic Conferences Limited. 102-109.
Lloyd, S., & Harter, C. (2010). Intercultural competencies for culturally diverse work
teams. Journal of Management Psychology, 25(8), 845-873.
doi:10.1108.02683941011089125
Mahrokian, S., Chan, P., Mangkornkanok, P., & Lee, B. H. (2010). Corporate culture: A
lasting competitive advantage. Review of Business Research, 10(1), 14-23.
169
Makins, Q., Nagao, D., & Bennett, N. (2012). Enterprise alignment and inertia risks
during transformation. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 11, 151-
168. doi:10.3233/IKS-2012-0178
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership
Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3
McCain, B. M. (2010). The relationship between perceived leadership practices and
organizational culture within the aerospace industry. (Order No. 3434017, Nova
Southeastern University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/839828496?accountid=35812. (839828496).
McCallum, S., & O’Connell, D. (2009). Social capital and leadership development:
Building stronger leadership through enhanced relational skills. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 30(2), 152-166.
doi:10.1108/01437730910935756
McCrae, R. R. (2011). Personality theories for the 21st century. Teaching of Psychology,
38(3), 209-214. doi:10.1177/00986283114111785
McCuiston, V. E., Wooldridge, B. R., & Pierce, C. K. (2004). Leading the diverse
workforce. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 73-92.
doi:10.1108/01437730410512787
McEntire, L. E., & Greene-Shortridge, T. M. (2012). Recruiting and selecting leaders for
innovation: How to find the right leader. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 13(3), 266-278. doi:10.1177/1523422311424712
170
McNichols, D. (2008). Tacit knowledge: An examination of intergenerational knowledge
transfer within an aerospace engineering community. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Phoenix). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 33254081).
McNichols, D. (2010). Optimal knowledge transfer methods: A Generation X
perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 14(1), 24-37.
doi:10.1108/13673271011015543
Mello, J. (2010). Corporate culture and S&OP: Why culture counts. Foresight: The
International Journal of Applied Forecasting, 16, 46-49.
Mercan, B., & Göktaş, D. (2011). Components of innovation ecosystems: A cross-
country study. International Research Journal of Finance & Economics, 76, 102-
112.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Minter, S. (2013). U.S. manufacturing: The misunderstood economic powerhouse.
Industry Week/IW, 262(2), 30-33.
Mohanta, G. C., & Thooyamani, K. P. (2010). Perception of top level knowledge workers
on productivity improvement through tools and techniques. Journal of
Management Research, 2(1), 1-18. doi:10.5296/jmr.v2i1.225
Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler E. E. III (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change.
Academy of Management, 41-51. doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0141
171
Morris, L. (2007). Creating the innovation culture: Geniuses, champions, and leaders.
InnovationLabs. Retrieved from
http://www.innovationtools.com/PDF/CreatingInnovationCulture.pdf
Mosley, C. M. (2010). Impact of leadership on identifying right organizational designs
for turbulent times. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 4(1-2), 57-67.
Mosley, D., & Patrick, D. (2011). Leadership and followership: The dynamic process of
building high performance cultures. Organization Development Journal, 29(2),
85-100.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murray, A., & Greenes, K. (2006). In search of the enterprise of the future, VINE, 36(3),
231-237. doi:10.1108/03055720610703524
National Association of Manufactures. (2013). A growth agenda: Four goals for a
manufacturing resurgence in America. Retrieved from http://www.nam.org
Nelson, K., & McCann, J. (2010). Designing for knowledge worker retention and
organization performance. Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 1-18.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nobre, F., & Walker, D. (2011). A dynamic ability-based view of the organization.
International Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2).
Nold, H. A. III (2011). Relationship between organizational cultural enables of
knowledge creation and firm performance. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Phoenix). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3467493).
172
NVivo 10 for Windows. (2013). GSR International. Retrieved from
http://www.qsrinternational.com
Obiagwu, G. C. (2007). Global offshore job outsourcing and its impact on the U.S.
manufacturing workforce: A correlation study. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Phoenix). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3292152).
O'Dell, C., & Hubert, C. (2011). Building a knowledge-sharing culture. The Journal for
Quality and Participation, 34(2), 22-26. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/884214955?accountid=35812
OECD. (2012). New sources of growth: Knowledge-based capital – interim project
findings. Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/economy/labour/50452962.pdf
Opstal, D. (2010). Commentary on Gregory Tassey’s “Rationales and mechanisms for
revitalizing U.S. manufacturing R&D strategies.” Technology Transfer, 35, 355-
359. doi:10.1007/s10961-010-9169-4
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007, February). A call for qualitative power
analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41(1), 105-121. doi:10.1007/s11135-005-1098-1
Oster, G. (2010). Characteristics of emerging innovation. The Journal of Management
Development, 29(6), 565-574. doi:10.1108/02621711011046530
Paladino, B. (2007). Retaining knowledge capital. Business Finance, 13(5), 32-36.
Palaima, T., & Skarzauskiene, A. (2010). Systems thinking as a platform for leadership
performance in a complex world. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3), 330-355.
doi:10.1108/17465261011079749
173
Pepper, A. (2003). Leading professionals: A science, a philosophy and a way of working.
Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 349-360. doi:10.1080/714023848
Perrin, C., Perrin, P. B., Blauth, C., Apthorp, E., Duffy, R. D., Bonterre, M., & Daniels,
S. (2012). Factor analysis of global trends in twenty-first century leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 175-199.
doi:10.1108/01437731211203474
Pervaiz, K. A. (1998). Culture and climate of innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43. doi:10.1108/14601069810199132
Peters, M. A. (2011). Greening the knowledge economy: Ecosophy, ecology and
economy. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 6(2), 11-38.
Pilla, S. (2011). A framework for transition management of the knowledge workforce in
the U.S. aerospace and defense industry. (Order No. 3509221, University of
Maryland University College). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019235442?accountid=35812.
(1019235442).
Platzer, M. D. (2009). U.S. aerospace manufacturing: Industry overview and prospects.
Congressional Research Service. 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.crs.gov
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 137-145.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137
Popkin, J., & Kobe, K. (2010, January). Manufacturing resurgence: A must for U.S.
prosperity. National Association of Manufacturing and Council of Manufacturing
Associations. Retrieved from http://www.nam.org/council
174
Prahbu, J. (2010). The importance of building a culture of innovation is a recession.
Shrategic HR review, 9(2), 5-11. doi:10.1108/14754391011022208
QSR International. (2014). NVivo10 fundamentals. QRS International Pty Ltd.
Quick, J. C., Macik-Frey, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2007). Managerial dimensions of
organizational health: The healthy leader at work. Journal of Management
Studies, 44(2), 189-205. doi:10.1111/j.1467.6486.2007.00684.x
Ramthun, A. J., & Matkin, G. S. (2012). Multicultural shared leadership: A conceptual
model of shared leadership in culturally diverse teams. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 19(3), 303-314. doi:10.1177/1548051812444129
Ramadani, V., & Gerguri, S. (2011). Innovation: Principles and strategies. Strategic
Change, 20(3-4), 101-110. doi:10.1002/jsc.888
Riege, A., & Zulpo, M. (2007). Knowledge transfer process cycle: Between factory floor
and middle management. Australian Journal of Management, 32(2), 293-314.
doi:10.1177/031289620703200207
Roethlein, C., Mangiameli, P., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2002). Quality in U.S. manufacturing
industries: An empirical study. The Quality Management Journal, 9(3), 48-66.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213617911?accountid=35812
Romano, K. W. (2003). The influence of organizational culture, leadership, and structure
on operational effectiveness in the aerospace industry. (University of Phoenix).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305238911?accountid=35812
175
Rose-Anderssen, C., Baldwin, J. S., Ridgway, K., Allen, P. M., & Varga, L. (2009).
Knowledge transformation, learning and changes giving competitive advantage in
aerospace supply chains. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 11(2), 15-29.
Rothaermel, F. T., & Hess, A. M. (2010, Spring). Innovation strategies combined. Sloan
Management Review, 53(3). 13-15.
Rubenstein, H. (2005). The evolution of leadership in the workplace. The Journal of
Business Perspective, 9(2), 41-49. doi:10.1177/097226290500900206
Sako, M. (2012). Technology strategy and management business models for strategy and
innovation. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 22-24.
doi:10.1145/2209249.2209259
Sakkab, N. (2011, May/June). Our nation needs an innovation strategy. Industrial
Research Institute, Inc., 11-14. doi:10.5437/08953608X5403003
Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate of innovation
through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145-158.
doi:10.1177/1548051808324100
Sauve, E. (2007). Informal knowledge transfer. T+D, 61(3), 22-24.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2011). Management (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schoo, A. (2008). Leaders and their teams: Learning to improve performance with
emotional intelligence and using choice theory. International Journal of Reality
Therapy, 27(2), 40-45.
176
Schreiber, M, & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems:
Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 351-365. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.006
Schultz, M., & Risberg, M. (1992). Postmodern picture of culture: A postmodern
reflection on the “modern notion” of corporate culture. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 22(2), 15-35.
Schmidt, H. (2006). Leadership in a postmodern world. Retrieved from
http://www.mbseminary.edu/current/images/article
SelectUSA (2013). The aerospace industry in the United States. SelectUSA. Retrieved
from http://selectusa.commerce.gov
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Shavinina, L. V. (2011). Discovering a unique talent: On the nature of individual
innovation leadership. Talent Development & Excellence, 3(2), 165-185.
ISSN 1869-059
Siccama, C., & Penna, S. (2015). Enhancing validity of a qualitative dissertation research
study by using NVivo. Qualitative Research Journal, 8(2), 91-103.
Siegel, D. (2002). Principles and methods in educational research.
Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/qualitative
/qualitativeinstructornotes.html
Siegwart, L., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Managing joint production motivation: The role of
goal framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review,
36(3), 500-525. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.61031808
177
Singh, S. K. (2011). Organizational innovation as competitive advantage during global
recession. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(4), 713-725.
Small, E. E., & Renrsch, J. R. (2010). Shared leadership in teams: A matter of
distribution. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(4), 203-211.
doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000017
Smith, C. L. (2010). The four components found in innovative organizations: An
investigation of Malcolm Baldrige national quality award winners since 2000.
(Capella University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
databases. (UMI No. 3397671).
Soliman, F. (2011). Could one transformational leader convert the organization from
knowledge based into learning organization, then into innovation? Journal of
Modern Accounting & Auditing, 7(12), 1352-1361. ISSN 1548-6583
Sousa, M., & Dierendonck, D. (2010). Knowledge workers, servant leadership and the
search for meaning in knowledge-driven organizations. On the Horizon, 18(3),
230-239. doi:10.1108/10748121011072681
Srinivasan, J. (2010). Creating a lean system of innovation: The case of Rockwell
Collins. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(3), 379-397.
doi:10.1142/S1363919610002696
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stempfle, J. (2011). Overcoming organizational fixation: Creating and sustaining an
innovation culture. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 116-129.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01091.x
178
Sverdlik, N., & Oreg, S. (2009). Personal values and conflicting motivational forces in
the context of imposed change. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1437-1466.
doi:10.1111/j.1467.6494.2009.00588.x
Taylor, G. (2013). Implementing and maintaining a knowledge sharing culture via
knowledge management teams: A shared leadership approach. Journal of
Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 17(1), 69-91. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1370702594?accountid=35812
Tetenbaum, T., & Laurence, H. (2011). Leading in the chaos of the 21st century. Journal
of Leadership Studies, 4(4), 41-49. doi:10.1002/jls.20191
The U. S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2013). Labor force statistics from the current
population survey: Age. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat03.pdf
The White House. (2011a, February). A strategy for American innovation: Securing our
economic growth and prosperity. National Economic Council, Council of
Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp
The White House. (2011b, June). Report to the President on ensuring American
leadership in advanced manufacturing. Executive Office of the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp
Thomas, A. H., & Mark, J. P. (2012). A U.S. manufacturing strategy for the 21st century:
What policies yield national sector competitiveness? Business Economics, 47(2),
126-147. doi:10.1057/be.2012.4
179
Thomas, E., & Magilvy, J. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative
research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16(2), 151-155.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x
Traitler, H., & Watzke, H. J., & Saguy, I. S. (2011). Reinventing R&D in an open
innovation system. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), 62-68.
doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01998.x
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Research and Training
Center on Community Living. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://rtc.umn.edu/docs/2_18_Gen_diff_workplace.pdf
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:
Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 298-318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002
U.S. Census. (2013). Selected economic characteristics. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src
=bkmk
U.S. Department of Labor. (2013). High growth industry profile. Retrieved from
http://www.doleta.gov/brG/Indprof/Aerospace_profile.cfm
U.S. Department of Labor. (2014). Futurework: Trends and Challenges for work in the
21st century. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov
Virgin, B., Allen, G., Collett, R. J., Green, D., ... Pavelchek, D. (2011). State of
manufacturing in Washington: 2011 report. Impact Washington. Retrieved from
http://www.impactwashington.org
180
Viner, J. (1929). Friedrich List. Journal of Political Economy, 37(3), 364-366.
doi:10.1086/254028
Vrincianu, M., Anica-Popa, L., & Anica-Popa, I. (2009). Organizational memory: An
approach from knowledge management and quality management of organizational
learning perspectives. Amfiteatru Economic, 11(26), 473-481.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, Wiley
Wainwright, M., & Russell, A. (2010, Fall). Using NVivo audio-coding: Practical,
sensorial and epistemological considerations. Social Research Update, 60, 1-4.
Wallace, R. B. (2010). The relationship of organizational learning to knowledge
management and its impact on innovation. (Doctoral Dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases. (UMI No. 3440053).
Walter, W. P., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30(1), 199-220. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037
Wang, S., & Noe, R. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management review, 20(2), 115-131.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Warrick, D. D. (2009). Developing organization change champions. OD Practitioner,
41(1), 14-19.
Washington Council on Aerospace. (2010, January 1). Report to the governor and
legislature. Department of Commerce. 1-28. Retrieved from
http://www.doc.wa.gov
Washington Board. (2008). High skills, high wages 2008-2013. Retrieved from
http://www.wtb.wa.gov/Activities_HighSkills.asp
181
West, C. J. (2007). Workforce development in the context of organizations, leadership,
and postmodern thought (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3302613).
Wilhelm, W. (1992). Changing corporate culture - or corporate behavior? How to change
your company. Executive (19389779), 6(4), 72-77.
doi:10.5465/AME.1992.4274485
Wilson, M. (2009). Complexity theory. Whitireia Nursing Journal, (16), 18-24. ISSN
1173-1966
Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic
world (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publisher, Inc.
Whittemore, R., & Melkus, G. (2008). Designing a research study. Diabetes Educator,
34(2), 201-216. doi:10.1177/0145721708315678
Wolf, J. A. (2011). Constructing rapid transformation: Sustaining high performance and a
new view of organization change. International Journal of Training &
Development, 15(1), 20-38. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2010.00366.x
Xu, J., & Thomas, H. C. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement?
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 399-416.
doi:10.1108/01437731111134661
Yanchar, S., South, J., Williams, D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. (2010). Struggling with
theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design.
Education Tech Research Development, 58(1), 39-60.
doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6
182
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R.W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: The role of
performance and image outcome expectations. Academy of Management Journal,
53(2), 323-342. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.49388995
Zeffane, R. (2010). Towards a two-factor theory of interpersonal trust: A focus on trust in
leadership. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 20(3), 246-257.
doi:10.1108/10569211011076938
Zheng, C. (2009). A correlational study of organizational innovation capability and two
factors: Innovation drivers and organizational culture (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databank. (UMI No. 3394575).
183
Appendix A
Greeting Letter
184
Appendix B
Participant Demographic Profile
185
186
187
Appendix C
Interview Participantion Card
188
Appendix D
Participant Identifier Coding
189
Appendix E
Premises, Recruitment and Name (PRN) Use Permission Form
190
Appendix F
Informed Consent Letter
191
Appendix G
Interview Procedure
192
Appendix H
Interview Questions
193
Appendix I
Confidentiality Satement Form
194
Appendix J
Premises, Recruitment and Name (PRN) Use Permission Form
195
Appendix K
Non-Disclosure Agreement
196
197
Appendix L
Interview Notes and Observations
198
Appendix M
A Process of Knowledge Preservation and Transfer – Leadership Practices