Received: 29 May 2021 Accepted: 31 December 2021

DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1704

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Does generational thinking create differences in knowledge

sharing and ICT preferences?

Catalin Bidian† | M. Max Evans | Ilja Frissen

School of Information Studies, McGill

University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Correspondence
M. Max Evans, School of Information Studies,
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Email: max.evans@mcgill.ca
Funding information
AGE-WELL, Grant/Award Number: Catalyst
Program
Abstract
Organizational strategies around employee retirement are often cast in generational
terms (i.e., as knowledge transferred between older and younger generations). Within
this context, research suggests generational differences in knowledge sharing prefer-
ences and in supporting information and communication technology (ICT) prefer-
ences. At the same time, others argue that the concept of generations is a myth, or a
stereotype-driven perception. Therefore, the objectives of this study were (1) to
examine whether there are generational differences in knowledge sharing and ICT
preferences and (2) to examine whether perceptions of younger and older genera-
tions' preferences match their actual preferences. Data were collected from 138 sur-
vey participants (Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials) and analyzed
using ANOVAs, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. Additionally, 13 interviews
were conducted with Baby Boomers and analyzed using content and narrative ana-
lyses. Findings showed no reliable differences between the three generations' prefer-
ences for knowledge sharing modalities (i.e., in writing and verbally) and methods
(i.e., in person and through various ICTs). The most preferred methods were email, in-
person, telephony, and instant messaging. Most interestingly, while all generations
had an accurate perception of Millennials' sharing preferences, they all demonstrated
a distorted perception of Baby Boomers' preferences. Moreover, the broader the
generation gap, the greater the discrepancy in perception. These findings support the
postulation that generational differences may be a matter of perception rather than
actuality. The most significant implication for research and practice is to retire gener-
ational thinking and to propose several alternative organizational strategies in manag-
ing knowledge continuity.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N and effectively transfer it from departing employees (i.e., incumbents)

Preserving organizational knowledge and managing its continuity goes
back to “the beginning of recorded history, when officials maintained
records of actions taken by rulers, governments, religious institutions,
and armies” (Beazley et al., 2002, p. 39). Successful knowledge conti-
nuity management involves developing methods and plans to strategi-
cally identify critical information and knowledge in order to efficiently
†
Deceased.
to their replacements (i.e., successors) (Beazley et al., 2002;
Urbancová, 2012).
One of the major challenges in knowledge continuity management
is the retirement of employees. When these highly skilled workers
leave, they take away years of experience and knowledge
(Kuyken, 2012), most of which remains undocumented (Leonard-Barton
et al., 2015). This knowledge entails a deep understanding of the orga-
nization’s operational processes, its policies, history, and culture. These
employees also leave with valuable social capital (Authier, 2005;

Knowl Process Manag. 2022;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1
2 BIDIAN ET AL.
Ebrahimi et al., 2008; Kuyken, 2012), affecting the organization's ability
to connect, integrate, and broker organizational knowledge.
This important intellectual capital needs to be leveraged, as
it is costly to lose or replace. Lost information and knowledge
disrupts operations, delays production, impacts efficiency, and “distracts
employees from important activities, causing them to redo […] tasks”
(DeLong, 2004, p.30). Several studies (e.g., ManPower Group, 2010;
Mitchell et al., 2001; SHRM, 2008) have shown that information and
knowledge lost through retirement creates significant challenges, making
it costly to replace (i.e., 30%–60% of an employee's annual salary). Orga-
nizations can mitigate much of this knowledge loss with proper knowl-
edge continuity management strategies (Bidian & Evans, 2019).
A common lens currently applied in strategic planning around
retirement is the concept of generations. Knowledge continuity or suc-
cession planning are thought of in terms of older generations sharing
their information and knowledge with the younger generations
replacing them. As such, currently most incumbents are considered to
be from the Baby Boomer generation, and the majority of their succes-
sors from the Generation-X and Millennial generations. Studies that
apply this lens, often conclude that each generation's unique percep-
tions, beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and behaviors are an important
determinant in KS (e.g., DeLong, 2004; Kuyken, 2012; Rothwell &
Poduch, 2004) or in the adoption and use of KS supporting information
and communication technologies (ICTs) (e.g., Czaja & Moen, 2004;
Hadar, 2014; Hannam & Yordi, 2011; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000).
However, knowledge continuity management strategies based on
generational thinking may be inherently flawed, as the generational
lens has come under substantial criticism. For example, work in the
psychological and management sciences argues that reported genera-
tional differences are more likely to be driven by factors other than
generational membership and that the concept of generations is in
fact a stereotype inducing myth (e.g., Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015).
Nonetheless, Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) bring to light an impor-
tant realization, that “whether generationally based differences are
real or not, people believe that they exist” (p. 321).
All this further highlights the importance of examining the use of
the generational lens in strategic thinking. Specifically, an incorrect
perception of, and strategizing around, co-worker's KS preferences,
based on their generational membership, may arguably be counterpro-
ductive to KS, especially in cases where there is a discrepancy
between actual and perceived preferences. Therefore, the objective
of this study is to (1) examine whether there are generational differ-
ences in KS and supporting ICT preferences, and (2) explore whether
perceptions of younger and older generations' preferences match
their actual preferences.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 | Population aging and continued employment
The size of the population aged 55+ continues to increase, with pro-
jections reaching 56% growth by 2030 and over 100% by 2050
(UN, 2015a, 2015b). In Canada and the United States more people are
over 65 than under 15, representing 16% of the population – more
than double the 1970s proportion (OECD, 2016; Parkinson
et al., 2015). North America is estimated to experience a 41%
increase, Latin America 71%, Asia 66%, Africa 64%, and Europe 23%
(Foot, 2007; UN, 2015a, 2015b). Although in the United States and
Canada the mean retirement age is 63–64 (Statistics Canada, 2016;
U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a), there is evidence that individuals are
pushing back retirement to remain employed (Statistics
Canada, 2016). Consequently, the labor force participation rate of
those aged 65+ has reached 14%, the 60–64 age group are at 55%,
and the 55–64 are at 67% (Parkinson et al., 2015).
Continued employment has positive overall health effects for
older workers (Sahlgren, 2013), and ICTs can keep them socially
engaged and cognitively active. Socially engaged seniors live longer
(Glass et al., 1999; Reblin & Uchino, 2008), experience fewer depres-
sive symptoms (Glass et al., 2006), suffer less disabilities (Mendes De
Leon et al., 2003), enjoy higher levels of cognitive function (Bassuk
et al., 1999; Krueger et al., 2009), and boast lower rates of dementia
(Crooks et al., 2008; Saczynski et al., 2006). These benefits, along with
the concomitant knowledge continuity, provide compelling reasons
for keeping older workers, even if only on a part time or contract basis
(Czaja & Moen, 2004).
Another consideration for organizations to continue the employ-
ment of older workers is due in part to the apparent slow growth
among younger employees (Czaja & Moen, 2004). This trend is attrib-
uted to a wider phenomenon (emerging adulthood; Arnett, 2000),
whereby it is argued that younger individuals postpone adult life
(e.g., employment, marriage, and living on their own) to find coping
mechanisms for the changing economic conditions that impact their
long-term prospects (Côte & Bynner, 2008). Studies conducted in
14 countries, including Canada and the United States (OECD, 2000),
show that the narrow, obscure, and inflexible from-school-to-work
pathways make well-paid, full-time employment increasingly difficult
to achieve. When younger individuals do enter the workforce, they
are less likely to stay with the same employer for more than a few
years (Deloitte, 2018; Liebowitz, 2008), arguably due to changing job
expectations, which may not align with corporate goals and
restructurings (DeLong, 2004). For instance, a survey of over 10,000
young employees in 36 countries revealed that about 75% see organi-
zations as capable of solving contemporary socio-economic and envi-
ronmental problems, but not actively doing it; yet they remain
optimistic about the future positive involvement of corporations
(Deloitte, 2018). In the recent past, younger workers have also experi-
enced a constant decline in earnings, an increased concentration in
low-skilled/low-paid jobs (OECD, 2000), and a labor shortage espe-
cially in highly skilled and/or managerial positions (Czaja &
Moen, 2004).
In short, the continued involvement of older employees and slow
growth of younger worker employment brings a need for strategies
that can accommodate the greater age diversity in the workforce (Al-
Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Kiser &
Washington, 2015).
BIDIAN ET AL.
2.2 | Ostensible generational differences
As previously mentioned, generational thinking commonly associates
specific characteristics with specific generations (Audet, 2004;
Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; DeLong, 2004; Kuyken, 2012), which
are typically summarized in terms of social descriptors that ostensibly
characterize each generation. The Baby Boomer (born 1946–1964),
Generation-X (1965–1979), and Millennial (1980–1999) generations
(Lancaster & Stillman, 2002) are the most often referenced in current
literature, and their collective age range accurately represents the
majority of today's workforce.
Baby Boomers are considered to be influenced by historical
events (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015), time-stressed, materialistic
(Strauss & Howe, 1991), competitive, and expecting others to pay
respect for their knowledge (DeLong, 2004). They welcome personal
interactions, having a common set of values that include liberty,
emancipation, and independence, yet they do not see the need to
transfer their knowledge to future generations (DeLong, 2004;
Kuyken, 2012).
Generation X are said to be skeptical and individualistic
(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Kuyken, 2012), having less interest in face-to-
face interactions, preferring to learn by doing rather than reading, and
having less respect for authority/seniority (DeLong, 2004). They share
a culture that emphasizes workplace well-being, are efficient at orga-
nizing information, and adapt quickly to changing circumstances
(Tulgan, 2000). Although they grew up with technology and used it
for learning, they do not put much value in its use (Kuyken, 2012).
Millennials are characterized as self-confident, socially conscious,
and optimistic, with a high sense of community (Kuyken, 2012),
but have also been described as materialistic, cynical, and narcissistic
(Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Hadar, 2014; Kuyken, 2012; Twenge
et al., 2008). Being digital natives (Prensky, 2001), their lifestyle is
described as living in a network that links the world through ICTs
(Kuyken, 2012), which may be why some have concluded
that Millennials are more open to adopting and using new ICTs
(e.g., Hadar, 2014).
It has been proposed that the various differences between the
three generations create unprecedented challenges for organizations
to efficiently handle diversity and balance strategy (Al-Asfour &
Lettau, 2014; Costanza et al., 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015;
Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Kiser & Washington, 2015). These chal-
lenges are further complicated when organizational strategies and rec-
ommendations are based on trying to deal with generational
differences (e.g., Brainin & Arazy, 2016; Costanza et al., 2012; Meyer
et al., 2002; Ng & Feldman, 2010; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Roberts
et al., 2006).
2.3 | Generational differences in knowledge
sharing and ICT preferences
Social science research has suggested a wide range of generational
characteristics that could arguably impact KS, including differences in
3
communication methods (Hadar, 2014; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005),
social networking (Hannam & Yordi, 2011; Jaworski, 2005;
Kuyken, 2012), workplace learning styles (Alerton &
Tulgan, 1996; Hadar, 2004; Hannam & Yordi, 2011; Keay, 1997;
Stauffer, 1997; Tulgan, 1997), and technology adoption and savviness
(Hadar, 2014; Hannam & Yordi, 2011; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000).
Moreover, it has been suggested that generational differences have
significant implications for organizational efforts to expand KS capa-
bilities (DeLong, 2004). For instance, studies suggest that Millennials
and Baby Boomers acquire and share knowledge differently and
have different perceptions of, and approaches to, using ICTs in KS
(Hadar, 2014; Hong et al., 2013; Kuyken, 2012; Lancaster &
Stillman, 2002; Nicholas, 2008).
Generational differences related to ICTs appear to be the most
commonly examined, likely due to the different experiences each
generation would have had with technology. For example, several
studies suggest generational differences in ICT adoption and use
(Czaja, 2001; Czaja & Moen, 2004; Horrigan, 2016a, 2016b; Morris
et al., 2005). Hadar's (2014) work found that Millennials used ICTs
more than other generations for finding and sharing knowledge, due
to a higher appreciation for them. Millennials are also found
to be more open to adopting ICT for sharing and more versatile in
using them (Audet, 2004; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Shaw &
Fairhurst, 2008), perhaps because they grew up more “connected”
and do not readily differentiate between online and offline, like other
generations do. In contrast, Zickuhr (2013) suggests that only 44% of
Baby Boomers rely on the online world for KS and are not inclined to
frequently use ICTs. Their ICT adoption/use decisions have been
more influenced by Millennials, perceived organizational subjective
norms, and behavioral controls (Iglesias-Pradas et al., 2017; Morris &
Venkatesh, 2000).
It has also been argued that Millennials acquire knowledge differ-
ently and have different perceptions of, and approaches to, ICT use in
gaining new skills (e.g., Hadar, 2014; Hong et al., 2013; Kuyken, 2012;
Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Nicholas, 2008). For example, Millennials
look for guidance beyond KS through ICTs, wanting help in building
soft skills, such as interpersonal/communication and ethics/integrity
aptitudes, and expecting organizations to foster environments that go
beyond informal learning (Deloitte, 2018). Baby Boomers have been
found to benefit from ICT use in learning and upgrading their skillset
(Willis, 2004), regardless of synchronous or asynchronous KS (Close
et al., 2000; Maier, 2007).
2.4 | Generational differences may be more myth
than reality
The literature reviewed above appears to build a compelling picture of
generational differences in KS and ICT preferences. However, before
taking such a picture at face value, a closer consideration of the con-
cept of generations is in order. Scholars in psychological and manage-
ment science have cast doubts on the usefulness of the concept of
generations in the workplace (Costanza et al., 2012; Costanza &
4 BIDIAN ET AL.
Finkelstein, 2015; Giancola, 2006; Joshi et al., 2010; Macky
et al., 2008; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Rhodes, 1983). The concept of gen-
erations has been called out as a stereotype with little heuristic value,
ill-advised, and even a myth. For instance, Costanza
Finkelstein (2015) report an absence of well-grounded theoretical
accounts that indicate how being part of a particular generation
(i.e., being born within a particular range of years) can reasonably
determine individual personalities, qualities, and values, let alone,
workplace behaviors. They also point out that operationalizations of
generation are almost entirely based on events in US history and that
they neglect the confounding effects of age, maturity, historical
period, and shared experiences between groups of co-workers
(i.e., cohort). Furthermore, alternate explanations for apparent genera-
tional differences are readily available, and studies carefully designed
to address the confounding effects have not been able to show any
influence of generation.
Ultimately, continued reliance on the generation concept perpetu-
ates generational stereotypes and may lead to distorted beliefs, work-
place conflicts, and the widening of generational gaps (Costanza &
Finkelstein, 2015). Organizations should equate this type of thinking
with ageism and consider the legal problems, issues of equity or
fairness, and negative effect on employee productivity it may create
(Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Moreover, it brings unnecessary
challenges for managers in balancing between generational diversity
and organizational strategy (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Costanza
et al., 2012; Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Kiser & Washington, 2015).
3 | RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Although generational KS and ICT preferences have been identified as
an important research area (e.g., Czaja & Moen, 2004; Elias
et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2004; Hong et al., 2013; Kiser &
Washington, 2015; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000), few have questioned
whether these differences are actual or “perceived” (Costanza
et al., 2012, p. 390). To address this gap, the current study asks the
following research questions: RQ1: What are the differences between
knowledge sharing modality and method preferences
(a) Millennials, (b) Generation X, and (c) Baby Boomers? RQ2: What
are the modality and method preferences of each generation when
sharing knowledge with (a) Millennials and (b) Baby Boomers? In order
to maximize potential discrepancies, for RQ2, only sharing with the
youngest and oldest generations were examined (i.e., Generation X
were not considered).
Building on the findings from these questions, an additional two-
part question examinees whether others' perceptions of younger and
older generations' preferences matched their actual preferences. Prac-
tically, this was done by calculating the difference between RQ1 and
RQ2. RQ3: (A) Are there discrepancies between how Millennials pre-
fer to share knowledge and how other generations prefer to share
with Millennials? (B) Are there discrepancies between how Baby
Boomers prefer to share knowledge and how other generations prefer
to share with Baby Boomers?
4 | METHODOLOGY
To limit the scope of KS preferences, two common modalities of shar-
and ing are considered: in-writing and verbally (Balogun & Johnson, 2005;
Choo & Bontis, 2002; Lee & Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). Each modality fur-
ther features commonly used sharing methods, such as in-person or
through various ICTs (Di Palma et al., 2016; Maier, 2007). The inclu-
sion of specific ICTs as methods was based on a market and competi-
tor analysis that identified pervasive enterprise social media and
collaboration ICTs and analyzed their KS capabilities, specifically for
older/younger workers (Di Palma et al., 2016). Furthermore, as it was
not central to the study, no distinctions or specific definitions were
presumed for information and knowledge. All survey and interview
questions referenced both (see Appendix A), leaving it up to respon-
dents to determine their meaning.
4.1 | Survey
Recruitment and data collection were managed through Amazon's
Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online survey platform. MTurk is consid-
ered as reliable as traditional survey tools (Goodman et al., 2013; Kees
et al., 2017; Paolacci et al., 2010; Peer et al., 2017), and the quality of
data collected meets or exceeds the psychometric standards of publi-
shed research, while not being affected by lesser rewards structures
(Buhrmester et al., 2011). Furthermore, MTurk offers the advantage
of replicating the study, as participants remain active over the years
(Daly & Nataraajan, 2015; Paolacci et al., 2010). Nonetheless, to miti-
gate reliability concerns, this study considered social and financial
implications. Amazon's guidelines for recruitment and compensation
were followed to ensure participants valued fairness (Goodman
et al., 2013).
The survey employed simple random sampling (Pickard, 2013).
MTurk participants were divided into generations based on birth year:
Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1979), and Millen-
nials (1980–1999). To enable these selection criteria, MTurk filters
were used for age, job/position (i.e., managers), and location (i.e., US
of and Canada).
To assess KS preferences, participants in each generation were
asked about their preferred sharing modality and method, as well as
their preferred modality and method when sharing with Millennials
and Baby Boomers. Preferred sharing modality referred to KS in-writ-
ing and verbally (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Choo & Bontis, 2002;
Lee & Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). Preferred sharing method referred to
specific sharing methods categorized under each modality (Di Palma
et al., 2016; Maier, 2007). In-writing methods include: forums/
discussion websites (Forums for short), Wikis, Blogs, instant messaging
(IM), and Email. Verbal methods include: Phone and Videoconferencing
(Dube & Ngulube, 2013; Eppler & Sukowski, 2000; Liebowitz, 2008;
Morgan et al., 2005; Urbancová, 2012). An additional In-person
method was added to the Verbal modality to capture sharing done
through person-to-person interactions, particularly during mentoring/
coaching sessions, lessons learned, post-project reviews, mutual
BIDIAN ET AL.
debriefing, and knowledge exchange sessions (Dube & 4.4
Ngulube, 2013; Eppler & Sukowski, 2000; Liebowitz, 2008; Morgan
et al., 2005; Urbancová, 2012).
Survey questions asked about preferences at work and outside of
work. However, results presented in this paper pertain only to sharing
at work. Some comparative analysis and discussion at work vs. outside
work are detailed in Bidian and Evans (2018). Survey items are pres-
ented in Appendix A.
4.2 | Interviews
Structured phone interviews were conducted with a sample of Baby
Boomers to gather survey data as well as qualitative data about their
ICT and KS preferences, experiences, and challenges. Recruitment
used purposive sampling (Pickard, 2013), through McGill University
research ties and professional networks. Selection criteria included:
(1) being at or near retirement; (2) being a knowledge worker or
involved in cross-organizational projects; (3) having held their current
job for minimum 2–3 years; and (4) having had direct reports.
Each interview participant first completed the survey questions
(over the phone). They then participated in a 30–45 min structured
interview reflecting and elaborating on their survey responses. The
interview consisted of sets of questions inquiring about their demo-
graphics, employment, information, and knowledge shared as part of
their job, types of co-workers they share with, the frequency of KS,
barriers to sharing, preference for sharing modalities and methods,
likes/dislikes about these modalities and methods, and finally, their
experiences in sharing with Millennials.
4.3 | Sample population
A total of 138 surveys were collected (125 through MTurk, and
13 over the phone). The survey yielded a fairly even distribution
across generations and gender (Table 1). The survey sample was con-
sidered adequate, as it exceeded the minimum suggested to attain a
statistical power of 0.80 with a population effect size of r = 0.30 at
α = 0.05 (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 529; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007, p. 123).
A total of 13 post-survey interviews were conducted. This number
of participants was considered sufficient (Guest et al., 2006; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) to achieve theoretical saturation (Creswell, 2003).
TABLE 1 Distribution of generations and gender in survey sample
Generation
Label Range (years)
Millennials 19–38
Generation X 39–53
Baby Boomers 54–73
Total
5
| Data analyses
Survey data were analyzed using a series of ANOVAs. For the first
two research questions mixed ANOVAs were conducted in SPSS
23 and for the other two research questions, on discrepancies, a
series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted in Matlab R2019b. p-
values were only used to filter out effects for further consideration
(i.e., p < 0.05), and inferences were based on effect sizes and 95%
confidence intervals (CI) (Cumming, 2014).
As the effect size measure, omega-squared (ω2) was adopted, which
is a bias-adjusted version of the common eta-squared (η2) (Lakens, 2013).
Effect sizes and their corresponding CIs were calculated using the MES
toolbox for Matlab (Hentschke & Stüttgen, 2011). To aid the interpreta-
tion of effect sizes, the following guidelines are suggested: 0.01 = small,
0.06 = medium, and 0.14 = large (Cohen, 1988; Lakens, 2013).
Cumming and Finch (2005) offer a useful guide for visually inter-
preting CIs. Briefly, when the overlap of the 95% CIs for two independent
means is no more than half the error or margin (the extent of the CI on
either side of the mean) then the difference can be considered statistically
significant at a level of 0.05 (and at 0.01 when there is no overlap). CIs for
means (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) were estimated using 10,000 non-
parametric empirical bootstraps (e.g., Efron & Tibshirani, 1994).
Interview data were transcribed and evaluated through content
and narrative analyses (Berg, 2009; Heisig & Orth, 2005), synthesizing
and summarizing the results and retaining key concepts and themes.
Findings and quotes are incorporated into the discussion.
5 | RE SU LT S
RQ1. What are the differences between knowledge sharing
modality and method preferences between the three
generations?
Figure 1 reveals considerable agreement in sharing preferences
across generations. Thus, the In Writing and Verbal modalities were
preferred approximately equally. The most preferred written method
was Email followed by IM, and the least preferred were Blogs. The
most preferred verbal method was to share In Person, followed by
sharing over the Phone. The least preferred verbal method was using
Videoconferencing.
This visual appreciation of the results was confirmed by a statisti-
cal analysis conducted in three parts (for Modalities, Written methods,
Count (% re: total all)
Female Male All
19 (13.8) 25 (18.1) 44 (31.9)
24 (17.4) 16 (11.6) 40 (29.0)
26 (18.8) 28 (20.3) 54 (39.1)
69 (50.0) 69 (50.0) 138 (100)
6 BIDIAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Sharing preferences for each modality and method by
generation. Error bars show bootstrapped 95% CIs (see text)
and Verbal methods) (see Table 2 for pertinent statistical details and
parameters). A 3 (Generations)
2 (Modalities) mixed ANOVA
showed neither a significant effect of Modality nor a significant inter-
action. A 3 (Generations)
5 (Written Methods) mixed ANOVA
showed a large effect of Written Methods but no interaction. Follow
up comparisons using repeated contrasts, showed a significant differ-
ence between Blogs and Wikis, between Forums and IM, and between
IM and Email. No difference was observed between Wikis and Forums.
Finally, A 3 (Generations)
3 (Verbal Methods) mixed ANOVA
showed a large effect of Verbal Methods but no interaction. Follow
up comparisons showed a significant difference between Videoconfer-
encing and Phone and between Phone and In Person.
RQ2. What are the modality and method preferences
of each generation when sharing knowledge with Mil-
lennials and Baby Boomers?
5.1 | Preferences of each generation when sharing
with Millennials
There was considerable agreement among generations in preferences
for sharing with Millennials (see Figure 2a and Table 3), which was
similar to that of the overall sharing preference seen in Figure 1. The
In Writing and Verbal modalities were preferred equally. The most pre-
ferred written method was Email followed by IM, and the least pre-
ferred were Blogs. The most preferred verbal method was to share In
Person, followed by sharing over the Phone. The least preferred verbal
method was using Videoconferencing.
A 3 (Generations)
2 (Modalities) mixed ANOVA showed neither
a significant effect of Modality nor a significant interaction. A
3 (Generations)
5 (Written Methods) mixed ANOVA showed a large
effect of Written Methods but no interaction (F < 1). Follow up com-
parisons showed a small- to medium-sized difference between Wikis
and Forums, a large difference between Forums and IM, and a
medium difference between IM and Email. No significant difference
F I G U R E 2 Sharing preferences for each modality and method by
generation when sharing with Millennials (a) and when sharing with
Baby Boomers (b). Error bars show bootstrapped 95% CIs (see text)
was observed between Blogs and Wikis. A 3 (Generations)
3
(Verbal Methods) mixed ANOVA showed a large effect of Verbal
Methods, but no interaction. Follow up comparisons, showed large
differences between Videoconferencing and Phone and Phone and In
Person.
5.2 | Preferences of each generation when sharing
with Baby Boomers
There was once again considerable agreement between genera-
tions in preference for sharing with Baby Boomers. However, a
number of qualitatively different preferences were observed.
A 3 (Generations)
2 (Modalities) mixed ANOVA showed a large
effect of Modality and this time there was a medium-sized interaction
with Generations (Table 4). Based on the CIs the interaction is attrib-
uted to Millennials and Generation X preferring to share in the Writ-
ten modality less than in the Verbal modality. No such differential
preference was observed for the Baby Boomers.
A 3 (Generations)
5 (Written Methods) mixed ANOVA showed
a large effect of Written Methods, but no interaction. Follow up com-
parisons showed large differences between Forums and IM and
between IM and Email. Blogs, Wikis, and Forums were equally disliked.
A 3 (Generations)
3 (Verbal Methods) mixed ANOVA showed a
large effect of Verbal Methods and a small interaction. Based on the
CIs the interaction is attributed to a differential preference for Video-
conferencing between Millennials and Baby Boomers.
BIDIAN ET AL. 7

T A B L E 2 Details for inferential

ANOVA Effect size
statistics for sharing preferences
Test F df p η2 ω2 Sizea
Modalities
Main effect of modality 1.432 1,135 0.234 - - -
Interaction w/Generation 0.475 2,135 0.623 - - -
Written methods
Main effect of Method 88.48 4,388 0.000 0.477 0.471 L
Interaction w/Generation 0.691 8,388 0.691 - - -
Blogs - Wikis 12.34 1,97 0.000 0.113 0.103 M-L
Wikis - Forums 0.301 1,97 0.585 - - -
Forums - IM 93.67 1,97 0.000 0.296 0.287 L
IM - Email 50.41 1,97 0.000 0.254 0.245 L
Verbal methods
Main effect of method 73.25 2,234 0.000 0.385 0.378 L
Interaction w/Generation 0.892 4,234 0.892 - - -
Videoconf. - Phone 62.10 1,117 0.000 0.347 0.339 L
Phone - In Person 19.65 1,117 0.000 0.144 0.136 L
a
S, small; M, medium; L, large (Cohen, 1988).

T A B L E 3 Details for inferential

ANOVA Effect size
statistics for sharing preferences sharing
with Millennials Test F df p η2 ω2 Sizea
Modalities
Main effect of modality 0.681 1,132 0.411 - - -
Interaction w/Generation 0.168 2,132 0.845 - - -
Written methods
Main effect of method 92.55 4,404 0.000 0.478 0.472 L
Interaction w/Generation 0.382 8,404 0.930 - - -
Blogs - Wikis 2.417 1,101 0.123 - - -
Wikis - Forums 6.446 1,101 0.013 0.060 0.050 S-M
Forums - IM 57.856 1,101 0.000 0.364 0.356 L
IM - Email 7.810 1,101 0.006 0.072 0.062 M
Verbal methods
Main effect of METHOD 63.91 2,230 0.000 0.357 0.351 L
Interaction w/Generation 1.82 4,230 0.126 - - -
Videoconf. - Phone 33.154 1,115 0.000 0.224 0.216 L
Phone - In Person 40.474 1,115 0.000 0.000 0.260 L
a
S, small; M, medium; L, large (Cohen, 1988).

RQ3A. Are there discrepancies between how Millen- provided in Table 5. Only one of the verbal methods showed a medium-
nials prefer to share knowledge and how other genera- to large-sized discrepancy: Baby Boomers tended to overestimate Mil-
tions prefer to share with Millennials? lennials' preference for using videoconferencing by about 28%.

Discrepancies were calculated by taking the difference between the
values shown in Figure 1 and the values shown in Figure 2 and
expressing the difference in percentages. Figure 3a shows the discrep-
ancies between how Millennials prefer to share and how the three gen-
erations prefer to share with them. A detailed overview of all significant
discrepancies as well as all pertinent statistical tests and parameters are
RQ3B. Are there discrepancies between how Baby
Boomers prefer to share knowledge and how other gen-
erations prefer to share with Baby Boomers?
Figure 3b shows the discrepancies between how Baby Boomers
prefer to share and how the three generations prefer to share with
8 BIDIAN ET AL.

T A B L E 4 Details for inferential

ANOVA Effect size
statistics for sharing preferences sharing
Test F df p η2 ω2 Sizea with Baby Boomers
Modalities
Main effect of modality 34.91 1,128 0.000 0.214 0.207 L
Interaction w/Generation 6.44 2,128 0.002 0.091 0.077 M
Modality: Millennials 39.82 1,41 0.000 0.493 0.475 L
Modality: Generation X 5.80 1.36 0.021 0.139 0.112 M-L
Modality: Baby Boomers 2.19 1.51 0.145 - - -
Written methods
Main effect of method 149.80 4,404 0.000 0.597 0.593 L
Interaction w/ Generation 0.25 8,404 0.980 - - -
Blogs - Wikis 0.91 1,101 0.342 - - -
Wikis - Forums 2.19 1,101 0.142 - - -
Forums - IM 64.79 1,101 0.000 0.391 0.383 L
IM - Email 59.44 1,101 0.000 0.370 0.362 L
Verbal methods
Main effect of method 148.42 2,228 0.000 0.566 0.561 L
Interaction w/Generation 2.76 4,228 0.028 0.046 0.029 S
Videoconf. - Phone 112.37 1,114 0.000 0.496 0.490 L
Phone - In Person 43.20 1,114 0.000 0.275 0.267 L
a
S, small; M, medium; L, large (Cohen, 1988).

(3/16) also evinced discrepancies. Two discrepancies amounted to

overestimations of preferences (both on the part of Millennials) while
the remaining 14 discrepancies were underestimations.
Millennials poorly estimated Baby Boomer's preference for all
modalities and methods (except for speaking over the Phone). They
tended to overestimate the preference of using the Verbal modality
by 14% and the preference for sharing In Person by 10%. Millennials
underestimated Baby Boomer's preference for using the In Writing
modality by 28%. They also tended to underestimate the preference
for using Wikis (36%), Blogs (28%), Forums (27%), Videoconferencing
(24%), IM (18%), and Email (10%).
Generation X underestimated the preference of Baby Boomers
for using the In Writing modality by 19%. They also tended to under-
estimate Baby Boomers' preference for using Wikis (30%), Forums
(26%), and Videoconferencing (21%).
Baby Boomers themselves underestimated the preference of
other Baby Boomers for using the In Writing modality by 9%. They
also tended to underestimate other Baby Boomers' preference for
using Wikis (26%) and Forums (22%).

6 | DI SCU SSION
F I G U R E 3 Discrepancies in sharing preferences for each modality
and method by generation when sharing with Millennials (a) and Baby
6.1 | A lack of generational differences in
Boomers (b)
preferred knowledge sharing modality and method

them. A considerable number of discrepancies (i.e., 16) were observed One of the most significant findings in this study was that there were
(see Table 5). The majority of discrepancies were by Millennials no reliable differences between any of the three generations' prefer-
(9/16), although Generation X (4/16) and Baby Boomers themselves ences for KS modalities and methods. The finding is not consistent
 BIDIAN ET AL.

TABLE 5 Details for inferential statistics for discrepancies between actual and perceived preferences

Preference of Preference perceived by ANOVA Effect size

a a c
ICT Mean [95% CI] Mean [95% CI] Δ% Fð1,df2 Þ df2 p η2 [95% CI]b ω2 [95% CI]b Sized
Videoconference M 2.70 [2.33; 3.09] BB 3.46 [3.15; 3.76] +28.0 9.55 83 0.003 0.103 [0.013; 0.234] 0.091 [0.001; 0.223] M-L
Blogs BB 2.42 [2.13; 2.72] M 1.75 [1.47; 2.06] 27.7 9.29 68 0.003 0.120 [0.014; 0.268] 0.106 [0.000; 0.255] M-L
Wikis 3.00 [2.74; 3.26] 1.91 [1.59; 2.27] 36.3 24.54 75 0.000 0.247 [0.094; 0.393] 0.234 [0.081; 0.381] L
Forums 2.95 [2.64; 3.27] 2.15 [1.80; 2.53] 27.3 10.50 75 0.002 0.123 [0.019; 0.264] 0.110 [0.005; 0.252] M-L
IM 3.77 [3.51; 4.02] 3.08 [2.63: 3.53] 18.4 7.27 84 0.009 0.080 [0.005; 0.204] 0.068 [0.000; 0.193] M
Email 4.61 [4.39; 4.80] 4.17 [3.80; 4.49] 9.60 5.18 94 0.025 0.052 [0.000; 0.159] 0.042 [0.000; 0.149] S-M
Videoconference 3.18 [2.91; 3.46] 2.43 [2.00; 2.87] 23.6 8.78 83 0.004 0.096 [0.010; 0.225] 0.084 [0.000; 0.214] M
In Person 4.35 [4.08; 4.60] 4.77 [4.64; 4.89] +9.50 6.66 92 0.011 0.068 [0.003; 0.182] 0.057 [0.000; 0.171] M
Written 4.22 [3.98; 4.44] 3.10 [2.79; 3.39] 27.7 34.00 94 0.000 0.266 [0,124; 0.397] 0.256 [0.114; 0.388] L
Verbally 3.91 [3.65; 4.15] 4.47 [4.25; 4.66] +14.3 10.52 95 0.002 0.100 [0.015; 0.221] 0.089 [0005; 0.211] M-L
Wikis 3.00 [2.74; 3.26] X 2.11 [1.77; 2.49] 29.5 51.23 76 0.000 0.167 [0.041; 0.312] 0.154 [0.028; 0.300] L
Forums 2.95 [2.64; 3.27] 2.23 [1.86; 2.62] 25.5 8.37 76 0.005 0.099 [0.010; 0.235] 0.086 [0.000; 0.223] M-L
Videoconference 3.18 [2.92; 3.46] 2.53 [2.19; 2.89] 20.5 8.00 82 0.006 0.089 [0.008; 0.217] 0.077 [0.000; 0.206] M-L
Written 4.22 [3.98; 4.44] 3.43 [3.16: 3.69] 18.7 18.35 89 0.000 0.171 [0.051; 0.306] 0.160 [0.040; 0.296] L
Wikis 3.00 [2.74; 3.26] BB 2.24 [1.93; 2.54] 25.6 14.04 80 0.000 0.149 [0.034; 0.290] 0.137 [0.021; 0.278] L
Forums 2.95 [2.64; 3.27] 2.30 [1.98; 2.62] 22.1 7.94 81 0.006 0.089 [0.008; 0.218] 0.077 [0.000; 0.207] M-L
Written 4.22 [3.98; 4.44] 3.83 [3.60; 4.06] 9.36 5.47 104 0.021 0.050 [0.001; 0.150] 0.040 [0.000; 0.140] S-M
a
Based on 10,000 non-parametric empirical bootstraps.
b
Exact analytical confidence intervals from the “Measure of Effect Size” toolbox (MES) (Hentschke & Stüttgen, 2011).
c
Discrepancy (in %) between actual and perceived preference: positive and negative values indicate over- and underestimation, respectively. See also Figure 3.
d
S, small; M, medium; L, large (Cohen, 1988).
9
10
with the extant KM literature reviewed earlier. However, the finding
is encouraging for academics and practitioners who do not consider
generational thinking as warranted. Removing this kind of thinking
allows researchers and managers to focus on potentially more influen-
tial individual factors such as age or personality, which are often con-
flated with generations.
The top four preferred sharing methods for all three generations
were email, in-person, telephony, and IM. Noticeably, all four
methods are relatively long standing in organizations, which points to
potential challenges in introducing newer ICTs, or positioning them-
selves as the better “ICT-fit” for prospective employees (Kiser &
Washington, 2015; Morris et al., 2005). In turn, employees may be
challenged in finding organizations with the capacity to accommodate
their preferences for the newest ICTs. Moreover, it may be posited
that adoption decisions are influenced by prior experience with the
ICT for KS (Brainin & Arazy, 2016; Brown et al., 2010; Engler &
Alpar, 2017; Leonardi, 2011).
Finding email at the top of the list is not surprising, as it has been
the organizational ICT of choice for the last three decades (Hong
et al., 2013; Kubiatko, 2013). If anything, a preference for email was
expected more among the Baby Boomers, who have more experience
with this technology in the workplace. This preference for email was
reiterated by the Baby Boomer interview participants (see below),
with similar opinions expressed about telephony and IM. It was sur-
prising, however, for email to also rate highly among Millennials, as it
is presumed they prefer real-time sharing, live feedback, and technol-
ogies that facilitate social interactions (Audet, 2004; Oblinger &
Oblinger, 2005; Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). These design specifications
are more consistent with modern synchronous and interactive KS
ICTs (Hong et al., 2013; Kubiatko, 2013).
Participant 6: “We're very heavy users of email in my
organization, particularly if it's around technical discus-
sions; it is important to have a written record.” Partici-
pant 8: “Email is my preferred method and the method
that I was most comfortable with [at work].” Partici-
pant 9: “I like [email] because you can share a lot of
information with a lot of different people at the same
time and you got a record of what somebody has said.”
Participant 10: “Email, wonderful tool. You can be
thoughtful; you can spend time developing and
reviewing the message, and it can be accurate. It can
be the true message you're trying to get to the individ-
ual. That's why it's my preferred method.”
6.2 | Perceived generational discrepancies when
sharing with Millennials and Baby Boomers
The findings showed that all generations had an accurate perception of
Millennials' sharing preferences. The only exception was that Baby
Boomers preferred videoconferencing when sharing with Millennials far
more than Millennials prefer this method themselves. Ironically, Baby
BIDIAN ET AL.
Boomers also did not particularly like videoconferencing, as was evident
from the survey, as well as iterated by some of the interview participants:
Participant 4: “I just found [video-conferencing] irritating [at work]; I have
actually never found video-conferencing anymore helpful than just
audio-conferencing.” Participant 10: “[Video-conferencing is] very flat.
It's two-dimensional. It's not the same experience compared to being in
the same room (i.e., in-person).” It is therefore entirely possible that
because of generational thinking organizations end up in situations where
baby boomers initiate the use of an ICT (in this case, video-conferencing)
that neither they, nor millennials actually like, simply because they have
the perception that millennials prefer this method. One potential expla-
nation for Baby Boomers having that perception may be based on the
stereotype that Millennials prefer more synchronous types of technolo-
gies (e.g., Audet, 2004; Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; Shaw & Fairhurst,
2008) because they grew up using them (e.g., Prensky, 2001).
It is important to note that the data analyzed in this study were collected
before the Covid-19 pandemic. Clearly, the pandemic has significantly chan-
ged the role of videoconferencing in the workplace. New entrants, such as
Zoom, and additional features from existing platforms (e.g., MS Teams, Skype,
etc.) will have likely changed employee perceptions and opinions on the tech-
nology. Although, it is currently unclear how people's appreciation of video
conferencing has changed, as they will have experienced new benefits
(e.g., wide scale remote working) as well as shortcomings (e.g., the lack of
social presence) from it.
Most notably, contrary to perceptions of Millennials' preferences, all
generations had an inaccurate perception of Baby Boomers' sharing pref-
erences. Specifically, all generations (including Baby Boomers themselves)
underestimated Baby Boomers' preference to share in-writing as a
modality. Millennials also overestimated Baby Boomers' preference for
sharing verbally and in-person. Furthermore, younger generations under-
estimated how much Baby Boomers preferred a variety of ICT-enabled
sharing methods. Millennials and Generation X underestimated Baby
Boomers' preference to use videoconferencing. Millennials also under-
estimated Baby Boomers' preference to use blogs, IM, and email. Surpris-
ingly, telephony was the only method where Baby Boomers' own
preference was matched by all generations. Interestingly, the inaccuracy
in perception of Baby Boomers' sharing preferences increases with the
generation gap. In other words, Millennials are less accurate than
Generation X, who in turn are less accurate than Baby Boomers
themselves.
Overall, the observed discrepancies support the position that genera-
tional differences may be more a matter of perception than actuality. This
is a novel and notable finding, not reported in the literature reviewed.
Most interestingly, the findings are consistent with the idea that genera-
tional differences may be more of a myth rather than reality (Costanza
et al., 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Giancola, 2006; Joshi
et al., 2010; Macky et al., 2008; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Rhodes, 1983).
7 | IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Given these findings, organizations should be well aware that genera-
tional perceptions and myths exist because even the perception of
BIDIAN ET AL.
generational differences may cause an employee to limit, or withhold
from, sharing. For instance, if an experienced veteran perceives their
younger mentee as cynical, impatient, or as only preferring newer
ICTs, they may be less likely to fully share their knowledge and more
likely to adopt a lecturing style, which may frustrate their younger
successors (DeLong, 2004). Similarly, a young mentee may dismiss a
more senior employee's knowledge as being outdated or not consider
them as being technologically savvy, and therefore not fully partici-
pate in KS.
A top-down approach is suggested to make sure employees are
well-informed about the lack of differences in actual KS and ICT pref-
erences, as well as the perceptions and myths associated with genera-
tional thinking. Most broadly, the present findings may be
incorporated into government guides, which many organizations use
to develop succession planning strategies, policies, and practices. For
instance, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2007), provides
“a roadmap of how to implement succession strategies” (para. 3),
which include strategies related to the transfer of corporate knowl-
edge. At the organizational level, these findings may be considered in
developing knowledge management and continuity strategies, as well
as incorporated into HR diversity and management training programs.
Instead of succumbing to generational thinking, managers should
focus their strategies and interventions on individual employee differ-
ences, specifically ones that impact performance and organizational out-
comes (Costanza et al., 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). One
evidence-based approach may be to conduct information and knowledge
sharing needs assessments with employees. Organizations can then
develop strategies and interventions based specifically on these mea-
sured knowledge sharing differences, rather than presumed generational
differences (Costanza et al., 2012). Similar approaches may be developed
using employee life cycle and career stage data (Macky et al., 2008).
Organizations should also adopt methods and technologies
supported by communication and knowledge-sharing theories, as well as
examine how information and knowledge sharing strategies and technol-
ogies actually connect to work-related outcomes. This permits the devel-
opment of KS and technology-use KPIs, which, in turn, allow the success
of such initiatives to be judged accordingly. Furthermore, since numer-
ous other factors influence KS, it is important to actively scan the inter-
nal and external environments to identify trends, or changes, in the
workforce and in ICTs, and to track the organizational developmental
and demographic changes (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015).
Overall, organizational interventions based on generational thinking
are ill-advised for several reasons. First, they have generally been found
to be ineffective (Costanza et al., 2012; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015;
Macky et al., 2008; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Second, assuming one genera-
tion (e.g., Baby Boomers) would be less open to adopting a new technol-
ogy or adjusting technology strategies based on generational
membership feeds the generation stereotype. Finally, making business
decisions on the basis of disproven and stereotypical shared group quali-
ties is bound to create legal problems, issues of fairness, and may have a
negative effect on productivity (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Although
generational classes are not legally protected, making business decisions
based on debunked stereotypes can be equated with age discrimination.
11
Moreover, equity and fairness are disregarded when organizational deci-
sions are made based on group membership, rather than an individual
person's characteristics and qualities. As Costanza and Finkelstein (2015)
point out, this is just as preposterous as developing organizational strate-
gies on the basis of gender or race.
8 | LIM I TAT I ONS A ND FUTU RE WORK
The main limitation of this study was its use of birth year to assign
participants to the typical generations (i.e., a cohort approach). As
Parry and Urwin (2011) caution, the absence of an apparent differ-
ence in KS preference across the generations can mean one of two
things: first, that the cohorts are not good proxies for the generations;
or, additionally, that there are genuinely no differences between gen-
erations. Here the choice was made to favor the latter interpretation.
Some researchers have suggested substituting psychological/cognitive
age or social age for chronological age (i.e., birth year) (Hong
et al., 2013; NRC, 2004; Rest, 1984). This is expected to provide a
richer understanding of preferences, especially in KS using ICTs (Hong
et al., 2013; Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). A second, more comprehen-
sive, approach to studying generational effects would be to replace
the cohort approach with longitudinal studies (Parry & Urwin, 2011).
Another alternative to a generational cohort approach would be
to further analyze preferences within each generational category at a
finer age granularity (e.g., Giancola, 2006); for example, by looking at
5 or 10 year intervals. Currently, most studies that focus on older
workers develop broad 55+ or 65+ age groups in analyzing ICT adop-
tion and use. However, with the aging population staying employed
longer, understanding the more granular differences among the vari-
ous age groups (e.g., employees in their 50s, 60s, and 70s) will become
increasingly more important (Czaja & Moen, 2004). The idea of
increasing granularity was also reiterated by one of the interviewees:
Participant 10: “I think [that] there's a distinction within Millennials.
When you consider the more ‘recent’ Millennials, the people that
would be in the 18 to 22–23 years old category, I see them as being
very different than the older Millennials, the ones that are in the 25 to
30-ish range of age. There really is a distinction in terms of the way
they approach communication.”
A second limitation relates to the sample population and the use
of MTurk. MTurk users may be more tech-savvy, as they are online
and registered for the service. The MTurk filters US/Canada and man-
ager were used to collect data from a relevant sample, since ICT use is
standard for most managers. However, these filters limit the sample
population in terms of geographical location, job position
(i.e., managers), and age representativeness. For instance, it may be
argued that not many younger employees secure a manager position
before the age of 25.
Finally, this research only examined well-established and ubiqui-
tous ICTs, excluding many newer technologies. Future work should
consider including additional ICTs (e.g., Google Docs, Facebook,
WhatsApp, and Zoom), especially as they become prevalent at work.
There is also progress in the areas of Internet of Things, virtual and
12
augmented reality, and artificial intelligence, which can foster vast
networks of knowledge (Kiser & Washington, 2015) and, conse-
quently, change how ICTs are used. Accepting and using new ICTs
changes over time (Morris & Venkatesh, 2000) and long-term usage
decisions are different from those made in the early stages of new
ICTs (Bidian & Evans, 2018). Over time, the KS preferences may
change with the changes in ICT preferences.
9 | C O N CL U S I O N
The objective of this study was to explore actual and perceived differ-
ences in generational preferences for knowledge sharing modalities
(i.e., in writing and verbally) and methods (i.e., in-person and through
various ICTs). Interestingly, the findings showed no reliable differ-
ences in actual preferences between the generations examined, which
is inconsistent with generational research on ICT and KS preferences.
Furthermore, while perceptions of Millennials' preferences were gen-
erally accurate, all generations had an inaccurate perception of Baby
Boomers' sharing preferences. Moreover, the broader the generation
gap, the greater the discrepancy in perception. These findings support
the postulation that generational differences are a matter of percep-
tion rather than actuality, as well as the broader notion that individ-
uals believe, correctly or not, that generational-based differences
exist. The most significant implication for research and practice is to
simply retire generational thinking.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In Memoriam of Catalin Bidian. The authors would like to acknowl-
edge the incredible contributions made by Catalin, who, sadly, passed
away before he could see this work published. This work was a part of
his PhD thesis, and we are very proud to be able to see it through to
publication. This work was also supported by AGE-WELL NCE Inc., a
national research network supporting research, networking, commer-
cialization, knowledge mobilization and capacity building activities in
technology and aging to improve the quality of life of Canadians and
contribute to the economic impact of Canada. AGE-WELL is a mem-
ber of the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE), a Government of
Canada program that funds partnerships between universities, indus-
try, government, and not-for-profit organizations.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
M. Max Evans https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2163-3205
Ilja Frissen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8658-7874
RE FE R ENC E S
Al-Asfour, A., & Lettau, L. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-
generational workforce. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics,
11(2), 58–69.
Alerton, H., & Tulgan, B. (1996). Pop quiz. Training & Development, 50(4), 8.
BIDIAN ET AL.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from
the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5),
469–480.
Audet, M. (2004). La gestion de la relève et le choc des générations.
Gestion, 29(3), 20–26.
Authier, M. (2005). Le management des seniors, ou comment ménager les
‘vieux’. Journal du Net. http://www.journaldunet.com/management/
0504/050479tribune-authier.shtml
Bassuk, S. S., Glass, T. A., & Berkman, L. F. (1999). Social disengagement
and incident cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly persons.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 131(3), 165–173.
Beazley, H., Boenisch, J., & Harden, D. (2002). Continuity management: pre-
serving corporate knowledge and productivity when employees leave.
John Wiley & Sons.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended
outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization
Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (7th
ed.). Pearson Education.
Bidian, C., & Evans, M. M. (2018). Examining inter-generational knowledge
sharing and technological preferences. In E. Bolisani, E. Di Maria & E.
Scarso (Eds.), The 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management
(ECKM2018) Proceedings (pp. 95–103). UK: ACPI.
Bidian, C., & Evans, M. (2019). Towards a Comprehensive Knowledge Con-
tinuity Management Framework. In ECKM 2019 20th European Confer-
ence on Knowledge Management (vol. 2, p. 132). Academic Conferences
and publishing limited.
Brainin, E., & Arazy, O. (2016). When wiki technology meets corporate
knowledge management routines: A sociomateriality perspective.
Informatics, 3(3), 1–12.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collabora-
tion technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collabora-
tion research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–54.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical
Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 6(11), 3–5.
Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). The strategic management of intellectual
capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Close, R. C., Humphreys, R., & Ruttenbur, B. (2000). E-Learning and knowl-
edge technology: Technology and the Internet are changing the way we
learn. Sun Trust Equitable Securities.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd
ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analy-
sis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differ-
ences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 8(3), 308–323.
Costanza, D. P., Fraser, R. L., Badger, J. M., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A.
(2012). Generational differences in work-related variables: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 27(4), 375–394.
Côte, J. E., & Bynner, J. M. (2008). Changes in the transition to adulthood
in the UK and Canada: The role of structure and agency in emerging
adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(3), 251–268.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
Crooks, V., Lubben, J., Petitti, D. B., Little, D., & Chiu, V. (2008). Social net-
work, cognitive function, and dementia incidence among elderly
women. American Journal of Public Health, 98(7), 1221–1227.
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Sci-
ence, 25(1), 7–29.
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and
how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2), 170–180.
Czaja, S. J. (2001). Technology change and the older worker. In J. Birren &
K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and aging (5th ed.,
pp. 547–568). Academic Press.
BIDIAN ET AL.
Czaja, S. J., & Moen, P. (2004). Technology and employment. In National
Research Council (US) Steering Committee for the Workshop on Tech-
nology for Adaptive Aging (Ed.), Technology for adaptive aging
(pp. 150–178). National Academic Press.
Daly, T. M., & Nataraajan, R. (2015). Swapping bricks for clicks:
Crowdsourcing longitudinal data on Amazon Turk. Journal of Business
Research, 68(12), 2603–2609.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.
Deloitte. (2018). The 2018 Deloitte millennial survey: Millennials disap-
pointed in business, unprepared for Industry 4.0. https://www2.deloitte.
com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html
DeLong, D. W. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging
workforce. Oxford University Press.
Di Palma, P., Moffatt, K., & Evans, M. M. (2016, August). Supporting our
ageing workforce: Competitor profiling and market analysis. The Accessi-
ble Computing Technology (ACT) Research Group Lab. http://act.
mcgill.ca/pubs/DiPalma-2016.pdf
Dube, L., & Ngulube, P. (2013). Pathways for retaining human capital in
academic departments of a South African university. South African
Journal of Information Management, 15(2), 38–42.
Ebrahimi, M., Saives, A. L., & Holford, W. D. (2008). Qualified ageing
workers in the knowledge management process of high-tech busi-
nesses. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 124–140.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC
Press.
Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L., & Barney, C. E. (2012). Age as moderator of attitude
towards technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job
satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(5), 453–467.
Engler, T. H., & Alpar, P. (2017). Does one model fit all? Exploring factors
influencing the use of blogs, social networks, and wikis in the enter-
prise. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
27(1), 25–47.
Eppler, M. J., & Sukowski, O. (2000). Managing team knowledge: Core pro-
cesses, tools and enabling factors. European Management Journal,
18(3), 334–341.
Foot, D. K. (2007). Population aging. In J. Leonard, C. Regan, & F. St-Hilaire
(Eds.), A Canadian priorities agenda: Policy choices to improve economic
and social well-being (pp. 181–213). Institute for Research on Public
Policy.
Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. People
and Strategy, 29(4), 32–37.
Glass, T. A., Mendes De Leon, C. F., Bassuk, S. S., & Berkman, L. F. (2006).
Social engagement and depressive symptoms in late life: Longitudinal
findings. Journal of Aging and Health, 18, 604–628.
Glass, T. A., Mendes De Leon, C. F., Marottoli, R. A., & Berkman, L. F.
(1999). Population based study of social and productive activities as
predictors of survival among elderly Americans. British Journal of Medi-
cine, 319, 478–483.
Goldberg, C. B., Finkelstein, L. M., Perry, E. I., & Konrad, A. M. (2004). Job and
industry fit: The effects of age and gender matches on career progress
outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(7), 807–829.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat
world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are
enough: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field
Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Hadar, G. (2014). The dynamics of intergenerational knowledge transfer: Case
study of air traffic controllers in the FAA (Doctoral dissertation). Univer-
sity of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. http://www.rug.nl/rese
arch/portal/files/16057743/Complete_dissertation.pdf
Hannam, S., & Yordi, B. (2011). Engaging a multi-generational workforce: Practi-
cal advice for government managers. IBM Center for the Business of Gov-
ernment. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/engaging-multi-
generational-workforce-practical-advicegovernment-managers
13
Heisig, P., & Orth, R. (2005). Wissensmanagement Frameworks aus
Forschung und Praxis: Eine inhaltliche Analyse [Knowledge management
frameworks from research and practice: A content analysis]. European
Research Center for Knowledge and Innovation. http://www.wissen
smanagement.fraunhofer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/WM/documents/
publikationen/wm_frameworks_heisig_orth_final.pdf
Hentschke, H., & Stüttgen, M. C. (2011). Computation of measures of
effect size for neuroscience data sets. European Journal of Neurosci-
ence, 34(12), 1887–1894.
Hong, S.-J., Lui, C. S. M., Hahn, J., Moon, J. Y., & Kim, T. G. (2013). How
old are you really? Cognitive age in technology acceptance. Decision
Support Systems, 56, 122–130.
Horrigan, J. B. (2016a). Digital readiness gaps. Pew Research Center.
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/
09/PI_2016.09.20_Digital-Readiness-Gaps_FINAL.pdf
Horrigan, J. B. (2016b). Lifelong learning and technology. Pew Research
Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2016/03/PI_2016.03.22_
Educational-Ecosystems_FINAL.pdf
Iglesias-Pradas, S., Hernandez-Garcia, A., & Fernandez-Cardador, P.
(2017). Acceptance of corporate blogs for collaboration and knowl-
edge sharing. Information Systems Management, 34(3), 220–237.
Jaworski, B. (2005). Aging workers, changing value. Journal of Employee
Assistance, 35(1), 22–23.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking
generational identities in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 35(3), 392–414.
Keay, J. (1997). Where have all the flower people gone? Director, 51(4),
68–73.
Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An analysis of data
quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon's
Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155.
Kiser, A. I., & Washington, R. (2015). The information gap amongst the
generations and the implications for organizations. International Jour-
nal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 6(2), 36–63.
Krueger, K. R., Wilson, R. S., Kamenetsky, J. M., Barnes, L. L., Bienias, J. L.,
& Bennett, D. A. (2009). Social engagement and cognitive function in
old age. Experimental Aging Research, 35(1), 45–60.
Kubiatko, M. (2013). The comparison of different age groups on the atti-
tudes toward and the use of ICT. Educational Sciences: Theory & Prac-
tice, 13(2), 1263–1272.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for
effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65–76.
Kuyken, K. (2012). Knowledge communities: Towards a re-thinking of
intergenerational knowledge transfer. The Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 42(3/4), 365–381.
Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumu-
lative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in
Psychology, 4, 863.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they
are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work.
HarperCollins.
Lee, C. K., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors impacting knowledge
sharing. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 1(1),
49–56.
Leonard-Barton, D., Swap, W. C., & Barton, G. (2015). Critical knowledge
transfer: Tools for managing your company's deep smarts. Harvard Busi-
ness Press.
Leonardi, P. L. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies:
Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material
agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.
Liebowitz, J. (2008). Knowledge retention: Strategies and solutions. Auerbach
Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at
work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23(8), 857–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904358
14
Maier, R. (2007). Knowledge management systems: Information and commu-
nication technologies for knowledge management (3rd ed.). Springer-
Verlag.
ManPower Group. (2010). Knowledge retention and transfer in the world of
work. http://www.manpowergroupsolutions.com/manpowergroup-
solutions/Home/resources/d090b372-2410-419d-8154-d0a1d98c79
b6/MPG_Knowledge_Transfer.pdf
Mendes de Leon, C. F., Glass, T. A., & Berkman, L. F. (2003). Social engage-
ment and disability in a community population of older adults:
The New Haven EPESE. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157(7),
633–642.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affec-
tive, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A
meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., & Graske, T. (2001). How to keep
your best employees: Developing an effective retention policy. The
Academy of Management Executive, 15(4), 96–109.
Morgan, L. J., Doyle, M. E., & Albers, J. A. (2005). Knowledge continuity
management in healthcare. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice,
6(4), 143–150.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adop-
tion decisions: Implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psy-
chology, 53(2), 375–403.
Morris, M. G., Venkatesh, V., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Gender and age dif-
ferences in employee decisions about new technology: An extension
of the theory of planned behavior. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 52(1), 69–84.
National Research Council (US) Steering Committee for the Workshop on
Technology for Adaptive Aging [NRC]. (2004). Technology for adaptive
aging. National Academic Press.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age
with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718.
Nicholas, A. (2008). Preferred learning methods of the millennial genera-
tion. The International Journal of Learning, 15(6), 27–34.
Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Is it age or IT: First steps toward
understanding the net generation. In D. G. Oblinger & J. L. Oblinger
(Eds.), Educating the net generation (pp. 2.1–2.20). EDUCAUSE.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD].
(2000). From initial education to working life: Making transitions work.
OECD Publications Service. http://www.school-wow.net/wow.nsf/
0/68937F81A65DC4E0C125745C004A74DE/$file/OECD_From_Initi
al_2000.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD].
(2016). Labour force statistics: Population and labour force. OECD Publi-
cations Service. http://stats.oecd.org/
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on
Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision making, 5(5), 411–419.
Parkinson, D., McFarland, J., & McKenna, B. (2015, November 8). The boomer
shift: Boom, bust and economic headaches. The Globe and Mail, pp. 1–13.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values:
A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk:
Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163.
Pickard, A. J. (2013). Research methods in information (2nd ed.). ALA Neal-
Schuman.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants (part 1). On the Hori-
zon, 9(5), 1–6.
Reblin, M., & Uchino, B. N. (2008). Social and emotional support and its
implications for health. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 21(2), 201–205.
Rest, J. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M. Kurtines &
J. L. Gerwitz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior and development (pp. 24–
38). John Wiley.
BIDIAN ET AL.
Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behaviour:
A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Veichtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-
level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis
of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25.
Rothwell, W. J., & Poduch, S. (2004). Introducing technical (not managerial)
succession planning. Public Personnel Management, 33(4), 405–419.
Saczynski, J. S., Pfeifer, L. A., Masaki, K., Korf, E. S., Laurin, D., White, L., &
Launer, L. J. (2006). The effect of social engagement on incident
dementia: The Honolulu-Asia aging study. American Journal of Epidemi-
ology, 163(5), 433–440.
Sahlgren, G. H. (2013). Work longer, live healthier: The relationship between
economic activity, health and government policy. London Institute of
Economic Affairs. http://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/
files/Work%20Longer,%20Live_Healthier.pdf
Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates.
Education + Training, 50(5), 366–378.
Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM]. (2008). Retaining tal-
ent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover. http://www.
shrm.org/about/foundation/research/documents/retaining%20talent-
%20final.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2016). Labour force survey estimates (LFS), retirement age
by class of worker and sex (Table 282-0051). http://www5.statcan.gc.
ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&id=2820051
Stauffer, D. (1997). For generation Xers, what counts isn't all work or all
play. Management Review, 86(11), 7–11.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future,
1584 to 2069. William Morrow and Co.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat [TBCS] (2007). Succession planning
and management guide. http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gui/surepr-eng.asp
Tulgan, B. (1997). Generation X: Slackers or the workforce of the future?
Employment Relations Today, 24(2), 55–64.
Tulgan, B. (2000). Managing generation X: How to bring out the best in young
talent. W.W. Norton & Co.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J.
(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of
the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4),
875–902.
United Nations [UN]. (2015a). World population aging: Report. http://www.
un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/
WPA2015_Report.pdf
United Nations [UN]. (2015b). World population prospects, https://esa.un.
org/unpd/wpp/DataQuery/
United States Census Bureau [U.S. Census Bureau]. (2017a). Current popula-
tion survey (CPS). https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html
Urbancová, H. (2012). The process of knowledge continuity ensuring. Jour-
nal of Competitiveness, 4(2), 38–42.
Willis, S. L. (2004). Technology and learning in current and future older
cohorts. In National Research Council (US) Steering Committee for the
Workshop on Technology for Adaptive Aging (Ed.), Technology for
adaptive aging (pp. 209–229). National Academic Press.
Zickuhr, K. (2013). Who's not online and why. Pew Research Centre. http://
www.pewinternet.org/2013/09/25/whos-not-online-and-why/
How to cite this article: Bidian, C., Evans, M. M., & Frissen, I.
(2022). Does generational thinking create differences in
knowledge sharing and ICT preferences? Knowledge and
Process Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/
kpm.1704
BIDIAN ET AL.
APPENDIX A
Note: For the sake of brevity in this appendix, some redundancy in
the actual questionnaire items have been removed. Repeated sen-
tence fractions are enclosed by curly brackets {}, variations are
enclosed by square brackets [] and separated by a vertical line. The
phrase “information and knowledge” is abbreviated to IK.
Demographics
• {Please indicate} [to which age group you belong j your gender j
the highest level of education you have completed]
Employment
• Please indicate your current employment status
 How many years ago did you leave the workforce?
• How long have you been employed with your organization?
• How many years of experience do you have in your field of expertise?
• My job involves tasks related to (check all that apply):
Knowledge sharing by job/position
• {How often do you share work-related IK with co-workers who are
in} [a similar position/job as you? j positions/jobs that are classified
below your current level? j positions/jobs that are classified higher
than your current level?]
Knowledge sharing with co-workers
• How often do you share technical IK (e.g., job-specific skills and
know-how) with your co-workers?
• How often do you share operational IK (e.g., organizational pro-
cesses, procedures, etc.) with your co-workers?
• How often do you refer co-workers to colleagues whom you know
can help resolve their work-related problem?
Knowledge sharing preferences at work
• In my job, I prefer to share IK using technologies that allow me to
communicate in writing (e.g., email, forums, wikis, blogs, etc.)
15
 {In sharing IK in writing at work, I prefer to use} [forums/discus-
sion websites j wikis or information databases j blogs j instant
messaging (IM) j email]
 Is there any other technology/method you prefer to use at work
in sharing IK in writing?
• In my job, I prefer to share IK using technologies that allow me to
communicate verbally (e.g., telephone/VoIP, video-conferencing, etc.)
 {In sharing IK verbally at work, I prefer to use} [telephone j
videoconferencing]
 At work, I prefer to share IK in person
 Is there any other technology or method you prefer to use at
work in sharing IK verbally?
Knowledge sharing preferences with older co-workers
• How often do you share IK with older co-workers?
• With older co-workers, I prefer to share IK in writing
 {In sharing IK in writing with older co-workers, I prefer to use}
[forums/discussion websites j wikis or information databases j
blogs j instant messaging (IM) j email]
 Is there any other technology/method you prefer to use in shar-
ing IK in writing with older co-workers?
• With older co-workers, I prefer to share IK verbally
 {In sharing IK verbally with older co-workers, I prefer to use}
[telephone j videoconferencing j in-person]
 Is there any other technology/method you prefer to use in shar-
ing verbally IK with older co-workers?
Knowledge sharing preferences with younger co-workers
• How often do you share information with younger co-workers?
• {With younger co-workers, I prefer to share IK} [in writing j verbally]
 {In sharing IK in writing with younger co-workers, I prefer to
use} [forums/discussion websites j wikis or information data-
bases j blogs j instant messaging (IM) j email]
 Is there any other technology/method you prefer to use in shar-
ing IK in writing with younger co-workers?
 {In sharing IK verbally with younger co-workers, I prefer to use}
[telephone j videoconferencing j in-person]
 Is there any other technology/method you prefer to use in shar-
ing verbally IK with younger co-workers?