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