Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. * Korespondenčni avtor / Correspondence author 61 Prejeto: 8. marec 2021; revidirano: 30. april 2021; sprejeto: 24. maj 2021. / Received: 8th March 2020; revised: 30th April 2021; accepted: 24th May 2021. DOI: 10.37886/ip.2021.020 Intergenerational Cooperation, Learning and Knowledge-Sharing in the Workplace Danijela Brečko * MLC Ljubljana - Faculty for Management and Law, Tržaška 207, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: danijela.brecko@sofos.si Abstract Background and Originality: The article focuses on organizations that face the challenge of es- tablishing a working environment adapted to the characteristics of different generations of em- ployees. Each of the generations in the workplace must be motivated to work, cooperate and share knowledge among co-workers of different ages. Many research studies have been done on motiva- tion in the workplace, but we have not found the research on the impact of different learning forms to motivate different generations to cooperate and exchange knowledge at the workplace, either on a Slovenian or global scale. Method: In this study, we examine the following two issues: If different approaches are needed to motivate different generations of employees to cooperate, and whether different generations differ in the desired ways of acquiring and sharing knowledge, using Piktialis and Greenes (2008) cate- gorization of learning and knowledge-sharing forms at work. In the critical assessment of motiva- tion for intergenerational cooperation and knowledge-sharing, we used a quantitative research method. The survey was conducted on a random sample among employees in a selected organiza- tion with 2,000 staff, with 334 responding to the survey. Results: The results showed that for Generation Z it is least important that they to share their knowledge and work experience with colleagues from other generations and that the younger gen- erations (Y and Z) are less suited to knowledge-sharing through storytelling (examples from prac- tice, comparisons, summarizing experiences) and summaries of key knowledge (from conversa- tions, interviews, conferences). Society: The concept of intergenerational cooperation in the workplace includes knowledge- sharing among staff, as well as a shift from knowledge-sharing to co-creating knowledge. We be- lieve this shift is of key importance for further development of human capital as well as knowledge accumulation in the organization. Therefore, co-creating knowledge should represent the future ambitions of every organization and research's communities. Limitations / further research: Research limitations and suggestions for further research. A selective sample should be taken into account as this research only included one organization and individuals from this particular organization that were motivated to participate. The small sample of generation Z should also be mentioned. The main limitation of this research was the failure to consider an individual's characteristic, organizational climate and communication pattern among different departments. At the same time, the focal organization operates in different geo- graphical locations, as this can play an important role in intergenerational cooperation and knowledge-sharing. Herefore, each organization needs to determine the preferred form of knowledge-sharing in each specific environment and choose a form that suits both the employees who provide information and those who receive it. This is also an area of further research, thus the influence of organizational climate and culture on the process of intergenerational cooperation and knowledge exchange. Keywords: generations at work, intergenerational cooperation, forms of intergenerational learning, knowledge-sharing, transfer knowledge at work. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 61 1 Introduction The presence of employees of different ages in the workplace is an important source of organ- ization success in terms of mutual cooperation and knowledge-sharing. However, both the organization and the employees must recognize this resource as an opportunity and not as an obstacle. Therefore, the organization and employees need to understand and respect diversity and difference according to age and generational affiliation. Only in this way can each em- ployee realize their potential and contribute to the entire organization's success. Organizations are thus forced to engage in a number of activities with age-diverse employees. They must rationally and effectively integrate the needs and abilities of employees of differ- ent ages into managing their work and increasing the work efficiency of both older and younger employees, which is inextricably linked to the constant need to spread learning and exchange knowledge. Although learning in organizations mainly takes place as individual learning, it occurs with the mutual influences and connections that employees have with each other (Rozman & Kovač, 2012). This means that employees learn individually, but not in iso- lation, and must be connected with other employees in the firm. In this way, knowledge is transferred throughout the organization, leading to greater efficiency, creativity and innova- tion. An individual employee represents the smallest link in organizations, and relations among people are formed during work processes. Therefore, work processes in organizations can only be effective if collaborative relationships are established among employees. Knowledge is an important component of modern organizations; therefore, it is especially important to establish cooperation and connections among employees of different ages and encourage learning and knowledge-sharing. It is thus necessary to create an environment that will be adapted to different generations' characteristics so that each of the generations in the workplace can be motivated to work and participate in achieving the firm's goals. Many or- ganizations are looking for ways to improve this process, with various measures designed depending on which age group or generation of employees they are intended for, as some can be intended for all employees and some only for a certain generation. As Bjursell (2019, p. 217) notes, "Although the ability to learn remains throughout one's life, one may change how one participates in education or educational activities." The article focuses on the issue of organizations that face the challenge of establishing a working environment that will be adapted to the characteristics of different generations of employees. Each of the generations in the workplace must be motivated to work, cooperate and share knowledge among co-workers of different ages. In this study, we examine the following two issues: If different approaches are needed to mo- tivate different generations of employees to cooperate, and whether different generations dif- fer in the desired ways of acquiring and sharing knowledge, using Piktialis and Greenes (2008) categorization of learning and knowledge-sharing forms at work. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 62 The concept of intergenerational cooperation in the workplace includes knowledge-sharing among staff, as well as a shift from knowledge-sharing to co-creating knowledge. We believe this shift is of key importance for further development of human capital as well as knowledge accumulation in the organization. Therefore, the area of co-creating knowledge should repre- sent the future ambitions of every organization and research communities. 2 Theoretical Framework It is necessary to define the concept of a generation and that of age in the work environment. From the point of view of the present article, age is the umbrella construct, which includes all changes related to age that an individual experiences during aging. Age-related changes do not occur equally in all people, and there are considerable differences between individuals. Some 50-year-old employees feel young and able to work, while others at the same age feel exhausted and unmotivated to continue in their careers. Therefore, the chronological age of the individual is insufficient to explain the differences in work motivation and employee behaviour. The individual's motivation for work is influenced not so much by the individual's perception of their chronological age, but by the perception of their future: in terms of whether they see this in the organization and are thus open to new work challenges. As people age, they go through various changes during their working lives, such as changes in personality, needs, impulses, intelligence, physical abilities, (working) memory, work experience, emotional reg- ulation and social perceptions (Bal, Kooij, & Rousseau, 2018, p. 13). It is impossible to find an unambiguous answer to how old an individual employee should be to be considered an "older employee" in theory and practice. In the literature, it is possible to recognize the con- sensus that employees in the age group of 50 or 55 fall into this category (Bal, Kooij, & Rousseau, 2018, p. 17). On the other hand, generations are groups of individuals born in a particular historical period, in a particular area, and share important life historical events of major social dimensions that are most representatives of the generation directly confronted with during their personal de- velopment. Generations in society change approximately every twenty years or so, where some deviations from the years of birth emerge from the literature (Dolot, 2018, p. 44, Speer, 2011, p. 15). Each generation is divided into three to seven annual subgroups, based on the first wave, core, and last wave (Tolbize, 2008, p. 1). Due to the importance of the issue – the impact on the economy, the labour market, corporate strategies – intergenerational differences and the emergence of new generations have become the subject of research throughout the developed world. Age management and intergenerational differences are increasingly issues in all organ- izations (May, 2015). Although these various authors identify different generational year continuums (e.g., specific Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 63 authors conclude generation Y in 1995, others in 1996, and so forth), the following recent generations have been identified (Tolbize, 2008, p. 2): • Traditionalists (silent generation, veterans), born between 1922 and 1945, who uncon- ditionally value authority and a hierarchical managerial approach; • Baby-boom Generation (baby boomers, children of prosperity), born 1946 to 1964, de- fined as the workaholic generation; • Generation X, born 1965 to 1980, respect authority and believe that a work-life balance is needed; • Generation Y (millennials), born from 1981 to 1995 or 1996, who grew up in prosperity and rapid technological development; • Generation Z, which also has many other names, such as iGeneration, Gen Tech, Online Generation, Facebook Generation, and Generation C (Dolot, 2018, p. 45), born approximately 1995 to 2010, which naturally communicates and works in both real and virtual worlds and loves change; • Generation Alpha, a new generation that already follows Generation Z and was born af- ter 2010 as children of millennials, living in a world of digital technology, and has not yet entered the labour market (McCrindle, 2019). Generations have different learning styles that depend on whether the matter is learned in- volves hard or soft skills. Hard skills are closely related to knowledge, such as the knowledge of laws, theories, regulations, and procedures, while soft skills are closely related to relation- ships and include communication, negotiation, leadership, teamwork, innovation, and creativ- ity. The hard skills are easier to observe, learn and measure than the soft ones, as the latter is less tangible and also more challenging to quantify and develop (European Commission, 2011, p. 9). Tolbize (2008, p. 14) notes that while Generation X and younger want to learn soft and hard skills at work, the Baby-boom Generation prefers the classic classroom envi- ronment for learning hard skills, while soft ones are happier learning while working. Learning in a group is the second most popular learning method for older employees, but it is less pop- ular among the younger generations. Younger generations have highlighted the use of as- sessment and feedback as one of the most desirable learning methods, while the opposite is found for older employees. Knowledge as the accumulated knowing and understanding of facts, rules, laws, and experi- ence is the foundation for achieving a competitive advantage. Knowledge in an organization can be divided into the following (Rozman & Kovač, 2012, p. 317): • knowledge of the individual as a result of employee learning, • group knowledge as the knowledge of employees connected in a group, • knowledge of the organization as knowledge of all the employees in the organization, • knowledge generated as a result of connections among organizations. Important characteristics of knowledge in an organization (Rozman & Kovač, 2012, p. 347) include the level of general knowledge, enabling the organization to achieve greater efficien- Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 64 cy and effectiveness, and the level of specific knowledge that cannot be found elsewhere and is challenging to imitate. Based on this definition of skills, employees in organizations can be divided into four groups: • related external collaborators who have little general and much specific knowledge, • employees with key knowledge who have a lot of general and specific knowledge, • contract employees with little general and specific knowledge, and • traditional employees who have little general and much specific knowledge. The organization needs to deal with both external and internal employees. It is necessary to establish long-term cooperation with external ones and form working groups of internal and external collaborators. To maintain or expand group knowledge (i.e., the knowledge of em- ployees connected in a group) and the organization's knowledge (i.e. the knowledge of all the employees in the organization), it is important to establish cooperation among employees, which naturally includes intergenerational cooperation. Knowledge-sharing among employees as a form of cooperation is important in creating the competitive advantages of an organization (Jiacheng, Lu & Francesco, 2010). It encompasses behaviours that facilitate sharing the knowledge an individual has acquired or established within the organization (Hsu, 2006). In order to enhance the acquisition of knowledge and knowledge-sharing, it is important what form of learning or training the organization chooses. The acquisition of knowledge in organizations takes place in various organized ways, both through direct personal participation and in the form of e-learning, as summarized by Brečko (2018, p. 8): • Course: several consecutive meetings, usually with a few daily breaks to reflect on what has been learned. • Seminar: one or more daily meetings involving the one-way presentation of information. • Consultation: one or more daily meetings to discuss a specific topic. • Problem conference: one or more daily meetings where one problem is discussed from several angles, usually with the participation of experts. • Symposium: A gathering where experts discuss and consult on a specific topic. • Workshop: one or more daily interactive meetings, with an emphasis on training. • College: a short problem meeting to find ideas or solutions. • Lecture: an informative presentation of a certain thing, novelties. • Educational meeting: a meeting with the purpose of exchanging knowledge and experi- ence among participants. • Working meeting: a meeting with the purpose of producing a specific product. • Consultations: a professional conversation about something, with counselling on a spe- cific problem. • Coaching: a special form of learning by asking questions that lead an individual or group to self-awareness and the solution to a problem • Mentoring: a process in which an experienced individual assists a less experienced person in professional and personal development. The mentor guides the mentee with Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 65 advice, suggestions and explanations. A mentor is a trusted person who transfers his knowledge and experience to the mentee. In the mentoring process., the mentor follows a mentoring program that clearly defines the goals of mentoring and the criteria for evaluating the entire mentoring process. Mentors must also be appropriately trained for their work. Piktialis and Greenes (2008, p. 25 - 61) note some other learning and knowledge-sharing forms at work, which we also address in our research: • Blog or weblog: a record on web pages or web portals, also on an organization's intranet. • Circles: forms of organized socializing of employees, during which knowledge is transferred among people who have the same profession or field of work. • Sending messages: the transfer knowledge between employees by sending messages to each other in real time, such as: email, Skype, SMS, and so on. • Records: records of information or knowledge in books or online. • Conversations: a conversation or unstructured interview between a person possessing knowledge and a person who asks for certain information. • Summaries: extracts of key knowledge from conversations, interviews, conferences. • Notes: notes made by individuals themselves for their own purpose to record certain information, lesson summaries. • Guided workshops: workshops led by a specific person, during which the transfer of knowledge between workshop participants is accelerated. • Mentoring: mutual cooperation between a person with advanced knowledge (mentor) and a novice, with a focus on career advancement for both. It is intended for the extensive transfer of knowledge among employees arising from different but related content, generations or departments. • Employee assistance: meetings or workshops where employees share their experience and knowledge with colleagues who have asked for help in relation to a specific work challenge. • Podcast: a way of transferring knowledge to a broader audience via audio or video media. The listener or viewer downloads audio or video recording from a specific medium (e.g. a website) and then played back. • Retrospective: a meeting of a team that takes place immediately after a certain event, and at which the team members make summaries of essential, newly acquired information or knowledge. • Storytelling: a form of knowledge transfer that is generally used to share and acquire specific expertise among employees from different backgrounds. It is considered to be one of the oldest forms of complex information transfer. For example: concrete examples from practice, comparisons, summarizing experiences. • Wikis: websites (including on an intranet, a organization's internal website) where anyone can create and edit content. It is a fast way to create, share and transfer group knowledge in a quickly accessible way. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 66 There are thus many different ways of learning and transferring knowledge in the workplace, and organizations must understand the learning style of each generation so they can adapt the ways and techniques of learning or knowledge transfer. Only with the right choice of learning methods will the members of an individual generation be motivated for learning and knowledge-sharing at work. With this research, we wanted to examine the following two questions: • Research question 1: Are different approaches needed to motivate different generations of employees to collaborate? • Research question 2: Do different generations of employees differ in their desired way of acquiring and transferring knowledge? 3 Method In studying intergenerational collaboration and knowledge-sharing in Organisation X we used a quantitative research method, which was carried out using a random sample of the employees, where the desired sample was 10 % of all the staff at Organisation X. Individual variables (nominal, ordinal and interval measurement scales) were analyzed. The question- naire was hosted on the website www.1ka.si. The survey was conducted from 24 November 2019 to 16 December 2019. The research was performed using the snowball method. We sent the questionnaire to 21 people employed in the selected organization (in leading positions) and asked them to pass it to their subordinates, taking into account the generational diversity of the workplace. The persons to whom we sent a hyperlink to the questionnaire were selected from our directory (105 persons) with a random 20 % sample (random selection, as all units had the same proba- bility of selection). A total of 394 people responded to the survey, and we received 334 ques- tionnaires with at least one question completed, giving a positive response rate of 85 %. A total of 255 surveys were completed in full (i.e. 76 % of all questionnaires with at least an answer). See also Figure 1. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 67 Figure 1. The theoretical model of research We undertook critical assessments of intergenerational cooperation and knowledge-sharing in an organization with over 2,000 employees from four generations and a large share of older staff. The selected organization, called Organisation X in this study, was founded in Slovenia. According to its size, it is classified as a large organization. It is engaged in gainful activity, being a Slovenian provider of technological solutions. The technological industry, by its very nature, is changing, developing and adapting to new technologies and the growing demands of users (Organisation Annual Report X, 2018, p. 134) At the end of 2018, the focal organization had over 2,000 employees, and the average age of these was 44.8 years. Just over 500 employees were over 51, representing 23 % of all staff. In the age structure of older employees, the majority were between 51 and 55 (64.1 %), followed by employees over 55 and up to 60 (32 %), with just 3.9 % over 60 (internal material of Organisation X, 2018, 2019). The number of respondents by generation is satisfactory in terms of the number or share of representatives of each generation in the primary population. Most respondents are from Generation X (the average age of this generation, born between 1965 and 1980, is 46.5 years), which roughly coincides with the average age in the organization, which is 44.8 years. We, Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 68 therefore, estimated that the structure of respondents aligns with the age structure of employees in the organization. In the statistical analysis of the survey, we considered the relatively large sample, with more than 334 individuals, all born between 1946 and 2010, who completed the questionnaire. In the analysis of the questionnaires, we used the statistical software package SPSS (Statisti- cal Package for the Social Sciences). The first question asked the respondents about which generation they belong to and then asked for their opinions on what motivates them to cooperate with other employees and which form of learning they prefer to accumulate and share knowledge within the organization. In studying intergenerational and knowledge-sharing in Company X, we designed the questionnaire for the research study only. We started from the already existing practice of knowledge transfer in the organization, using an observation method (focus groups) that we performed with 150 employees. Moderated focus group meetings were held in the company from 10 to 25 September 2019, primarily for preparation of the company's strategy. We formed a total of six focus groups, each with 25 participants. The sample included approximately the same number of employees from all departments. Moderators introduced to the participants the importance of cooperation and knowledge transfer in the workplace and the modern knowledge-transfer methods. They then quantita- tively checked the participants' perceptions in the following areas: motivation for cooperation and collaboration with colleagues at work, attitudes towards knowledge-sharing, and current and desired method for knowledge-sharing in the workplace. Moderators checked the percep- tions of the participants with four pre-designed questions:  What does cooperation with co-workers means to you?  In what concrete ways do you connect and cooperate with co-workers at work?  What kind of knowledge-transfer practices do you already use at work?  What kind of (new) methods of knowledge transfer in the workplace would you like to use in the future? Your ideas? Each question was written separately on a poster, and the participants spontaneously wrote down their answers. Focus groups were moderated according to the principle of the open space method, which means that each participant in the focus group wrote down the answer to those questions to which they wanted or felt they could contribute an answer. For example, for the questions - What kind of knowledge-transfer practices do you already use at work? We obtained a total of 107 spontaneous responses. Those that were very similar in content were combined into one answer. Based on the focus group results, we prepared the questionnaire to assess the motivation for cooperation and knowledge transfer in a broader population. We did not conduct a pilot test of Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 69 the questionnaire, as we conducted pre-testing that was performed on the population of one company with common elements of organizational culture. Pre-testing was performed in two parts. In the first part, we discussed the structure of the questionnaire and the formulation of the questions in a small group of human resources experts who were preparing a new strategy for intergenerational cooperation and learning in company X. In the second part, we surveyed eight employees (two from each generation). We asked the respondents the meaning of each question and asked them to say out loud the course of thinking and then to answer the ques- tion. Based on the results of the pre-testing, we made some final corrections to the question- naire. 4 Results 4.1 Basic and surveyed population Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses concerning "Which generation do you belong to according to your year of birth?", which shows that 207 (62 %) respondents are representa- tives of Generation X, 54 (16 %) of Generation Y, 50 (15 %) of the Baby-boom Generation, and 23 (7 %) of Generation Z. Figure 2. Distribution of responses on which generation according to the year of birth? Figure 3 shows the distribution of respondents in correlation with the primary population. Figure 3. The distribution of respondents in the primary population 4.2 Research question 1: Are different approaches needed to motivate different genera- tions of employees to collaborate? In the first research question, Are different approaches needed to motivate different genera- tions of employees to collaborate? We were interested in which aspects of motivation have statistically significant differences between individual generations. We analyzed the trans- formed variables (1 = very unmotivated, to 4 = very motivated) and used the ANOVA (analy- sis of variance) test to compare the averages of several independent samples (see Table 1). Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 70 Table 1. ANOVA on for "To what extent does the statement apply to you…?" Variable Sum of Squares df Mean Square (MS) F Sig. I believe that mutual advice and the sharing of ideas and information about work are an important part of my responsibility Between Groups 1.393 3 .464 1.615 .186 Within Groups 72.739 253 .288 Total 74.132 256 I do the work faster and more efficiently on my own than in a team of co-workers Between Groups 1.409 3 .470 .873 .456 Within Groups 136.140 253 .538 Total 137.549 256 If I help a co-worker get the job done faster, I benefit from it myself Between Groups .997 3 .332 .603 .614 Within Groups 139.408 253 .551 Total 140.405 256 It is important to me to share my work ex- perience and knowledge with co-workers Between Groups 2.383 3 .794 2.932 .034 Within Groups 68.536 253 .271 Total 70.918 256 Personal contact with co-workers is the most desirable way to transfer knowledge and experience for me Between Groups .260 3 .087 .268 .849 Within Groups 81.599 252 .324 Total 81.859 255 It is important to me that I have relation- ships with my colleagues in which I can openly share my feelings about our work Between Groups 1.382 3 .461 1.604 .189 Within Groups 72.649 253 .287 Total 74.031 256 When I encounter a problem at work, I turn to my colleagues for advice or knowledge Between Groups .531 3 .177 .593 .620 Within Groups 75.277 252 .299 Total 75.809 255 From Table 1, we can see that statistically significant differences between the average of gen- erations occur only in the statement "It is important to share my work experience and knowledge with co-workers" with Mean Square (MS) between groups =, 794; F = 2.932 and Sig. = 0.34. For the other statements, there are no differences between the averages. We did not detect significant differences. We conclude that different motivational tools between gen- erations are not required, as they all have a very similar impact. ANOVA gives us an answer as to whether the averages between the groups are statistically significantly different, but it does not tell us which groups are those where the differences occur, so we checked this with post-hoc tests. In Table 2, we used a post-hoc test to analyze which generations contribute the most to the differences in the variable "It is important for me to share my work experience and knowledge with my colleagues". We find that Generation Z contributes the most to the differences, which is significantly more unmotivated for these variables than the other generations (MD of Baby Boom = -.458; to Generation X= -.384 and Generation Y = -.381), while there are no signifi- cant differences in this statement between the other three generations. We conclude that the same motivational tools regarding the sharing of work experience and knowledge among co- workers have the least effect on Generation Z, while the impacts on the other three genera- tions are very similar. Although we did not detect significant differences between the averag- es of all groups in the other statements, we perceive some partial differences between the Ba- by-boom and Generation Y averages in the statement "I believe that mutual advice and trans- Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 71 fer of ideas and information about work is an important part of my responsibility" ( The baby- boom generation feels more motivated on average) and between Generation Y and Z averages in the statement "It's important for me to have a relationship with co-workers in which I can openly share my feelings about our work" Generation Z feels on average less motivated). From the post-hoc test results (see Table 2), we can conclude that for Generation Z, it is least important to share their work experience and knowledge with co-workers. Representatives of Generation Z use technical devices practically all the time and have access to a large amount of information due to the World Wide Web; their technical and linguistic knowledge is at a high level. They are independent, self-sufficient and find it difficult to accept authority. They know how to find the correct information and resources. Perhaps this is why they do not feel motivated to share their knowledge and work experience with others. It is also possible to interpret that the youngest generation in the selected company does not yet have enough work experience and knowledge to feel competent to share it with others. Table 2. Post-hoc tests for "To what extent does the statement apply to you…?" Dependent Variable (I) Which gener- ation do you belong to ac- cording to the year of your birth? (J) Which generation do you belong to according to the year of your birth? Mean Differ- ence (MD) (I-J) Std. Er- ror Sig. 95 % Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound I believe that mutu- al advice and shar- ing of ideas and information about work are an im- portant part of my responsibility Baby-boom Generation X .136 .097 .160 -.05 .33 Generation Y .263 * .119 .029 .03 .50 Generation Z .125 .164 .447 -.20 .45 Generation X Baby-boom -.136 .097 .160 -.33 .05 Generation Y .126 .092 .171 -.05 .31 Generation Z -.012 .145 .936 -.30 .27 Generation Y Baby-boom -.263 * .119 .029 -.50 -.03 Generation X -.126 .092 .171 -.31 .05 Generation Z -.138 .161 .392 -.45 .18 Generation Z Baby-boom -.125 .164 .447 -.45 .20 Generation X .012 .145 .936 -.27 .30 Generation Y .138 .161 .392 -.18 .45 I do the work faster and more efficiently on my own than in a team of co- workers Baby-boom Generation X -.053 .132 .688 -.31 .21 Generation Y -.185 .163 .257 -.51 .14 Generation Z .139 .224 .536 -.30 .58 Generation X Baby-boom .053 .132 .688 -.21 .31 Generation Y -.132 .126 .294 -.38 .12 Generation Z .192 .198 .334 -.20 .58 Generation Y Baby-boom .185 .163 .257 -.14 .51 Generation X .132 .126 .294 -.12 .38 Generation Z .324 .220 .142 -.11 .76 Generation Z Baby-boom -.139 .224 .536 -.58 .30 Generation X -.192 .198 .334 -.58 .20 Generation Y -.324 .220 .142 -.76 .11 If I help a co- worker get the job done faster, I bene- fit from it myself Baby-boom Generation X .097 .134 .470 -.17 .36 Generation Y .196 .165 .236 -.13 .52 Generation Z .223 .226 .326 -.22 .67 Generation X Baby-boom -.097 .134 .470 -.36 .17 Generation Y .100 .127 .436 -.15 .35 Generation Z .126 .200 .530 -.27 .52 Generation Y Baby-boom -.196 .165 .236 -.52 .13 Generation X -.100 .127 .436 -.35 .15 Generation Z .026 .223 .906 -.41 .46 “to be continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 72 Generation Z Baby-boom -.223 .226 .326 -.67 .22 Generation X -.126 .200 .530 -.52 .27 Generation Y -.026 .223 .906 -.46 .41 It is important to me to share my work experience and knowledge with co-workers Baby-boom Generation X .074 .094 .431 -.11 .26 Generation Y .076 .116 .510 -.15 .30 Generation Z .458 * .159 .004 .15 .77 Generation X Baby-boom -.074 .094 .431 -.26 .11 Generation Y .002 .089 .978 -.17 .18 Generation Z .384 * .141 .007 .11 .66 Generation Y Baby-boom -.076 .116 .510 -.30 .15 Generation X -.002 .089 .978 -.18 .17 Generation Z .381 * .156 .015 .07 .69 Generation Z Baby-boom -.458 * .159 .004 -.77 -.15 Generation X -.384 * .141 .007 -.66 -.11 Generation Y -.381 * .156 .015 -.69 -.07 Personal contact with co-workers is the most desirable way to transfer knowledge and experience for me Baby-boom Generation X -.053 .103 .609 -.25 .15 Generation Y .006 .127 .965 -.24 .26 Generation Z .047 .174 .785 -.29 .39 Generation X Baby-boom .053 .103 .609 -.15 .25 Generation Y .058 .098 .553 -.13 .25 Generation Z .100 .154 .516 -.20 .40 Generation Y Baby-boom -.006 .127 .965 -.26 .24 Generation X -.058 .098 .553 -.25 .13 Generation Z .042 .171 .806 -.29 .38 Generation Z Baby-boom -.047 .174 .785 -.39 .29 Generation X -.100 .154 .516 -.40 .20 Generation Y -.042 .171 .806 -.38 .29 It is important to me that I have relationships with my colleagues in which I can openly share my feelings about our work. Baby-boom Generation X .057 .097 .554 -.13 .25 Generation Y -.026 .119 .830 -.26 .21 Generation Z .312 .163 .057 -.01 .63 Generation X Baby-boom -.057 .097 .554 -.25 .13 Generation Y -.083 .092 .368 -.26 .10 Generation Z .255 .145 .079 -.03 .54 Generation Y Baby-boom .026 .119 .830 -.21 .26 Generation X .083 .092 .368 -.10 .26 Generation Z .338 * .161 .036 .02 .65 Generation Z Baby-boom -.312 .163 .057 -.63 .01 Generation X -.255 .145 .079 -.54 .03 Generation Y -.338 * .161 .036 -.65 -.02 When I encounter a problem at work, I turn to my col- leagues for advice or knowledge Baby-boom Generation X .105 .099 .287 -.09 .30 Generation Y .024 .122 .845 -.22 .26 Generation Z .139 .167 .406 -.19 .47 Generation X Baby-boom -.105 .099 .287 -.30 .09 Generation Y -.081 .094 .387 -.27 .10 Generation Z .033 .148 .821 -.26 .32 Generation Y Baby-boom -.024 .122 .845 -.26 .22 Generation X .081 .094 .387 -.10 .27 Generation Z .115 .164 .485 -.21 .44 Generation Z Baby-boom -.139 .167 .406 -.47 .19 Generation X -.033 .148 .821 -.32 .26 Generation Y -.115 .164 .485 -.44 .21 * The mean difference (MD) is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 3 shows the ANOVA results for the transformed variables in terms of motivation to participate by different generations. The average values of all four generations were higher than 3 for all questions, and thus all generations were at least slightly motivated, except for the item Regarding achievement at work, where they ranged between 2 and 3 (with all four generations somewhere between unmotivated and motivated). When we study the results of “continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 73 ANOVA, we find that at a 5 % risk level, we cannot reject the zero assumption that the arith- metic means between the groups are the same or that there are no statistically significant dif- ferences between the average motivations among the generations. Therefore, we conclude that the motivational tools examined in this study work very similarly on all four generations. We can presume that it is least important for Generation Z to share their experience and knowledge with co-workers. Generation Z uses digital devices practically all the time and has access to a large amount of information on the Internet, and thus their technical and language knowledge is very high. It is also possible to interpret the results showing that the youngest generation in Organisation X does not yet have enough work experience and knowledge to feel competent to share it with others. It is also a significant fact that there is a minimal share of Generation Z respondents in the survey, so the results are not statistically significant. How- ever, because there is a minimal number of members of Generation Z in the focal organiza- tion, a significantly larger sample of this group would not be possible. Table 3. ANOVA for motivation to collaborate Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. My idea of communicating about goals and priorities at work is Between Groups 3.944 3 1.315 1.271 .285 Within Groups 261.776 253 1.035 Total 265.720 256 We meet in person with colleagues with whom we are involved in a joint work process Between Groups 2.076 3 .692 .602 .614 Within Groups 290.858 253 1.150 Total 292.934 256 In relation to other co-workers Between Groups .904 3 .301 .546 .651 Within Groups 139.641 253 .552 Total 140.545 256 In case of disagreements and conflicts between co-workers, I deal with the situation as follows Between Groups 2.565 3 .855 1.645 .179 Within Groups 130.993 252 .520 Total 133.559 255 Regarding my achievements at work Between Groups 2.233 3 .744 .376 .770 Within Groups 498.388 252 1.978 Total 500.621 255 Regarding trust in the workplace Between Groups 1.007 3 .336 .560 .642 Within Groups 151.608 253 .599 Total 152.615 256 My idea of sharing information with other co-workers is Between Groups .108 3 .036 .156 .926 Within Groups 58.126 253 .230 Total 58.233 256 Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 74 4.2 Research question 2: Do different generations of employees differ in the desired way of acquiring and sharing knowledge? To answer this research question, we wanted to determine which favoured ways of acquiring and sharing knowledge showed statistically significant differences among the four genera- tions. Table 4 shows the ANOVA results for the given variables regarding the desired form of knowledge-sharing among employees, while Table 5 shows the results of post-hoc tests. Table 4. ANOVA for Various forms of knowledge-sharing between co-workers, indicate to what extent these suit to you Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Blog Between Groups 3.131 3 1.044 .692 .557 Within Groups 375.311 249 1.507 Total 378.443 252 Circles Between Groups 6.013 3 2.004 1.506 .214 Within Groups 332.747 250 1.331 Total 338.760 253 Sending messages Between Groups 7.633 3 2.544 1.759 .155 Within Groups 361.568 250 1.446 Total 369.201 253 Records Between Groups 1.817 3 .606 .596 .618 Within Groups 253.841 250 1.015 Total 255.657 253 Talking Between Groups 5.114 3 1.705 1.867 .136 Within Groups 228.335 250 .913 Total 233.449 253 Summaries Between Groups 8.352 3 2.784 3.235 .023 Within Groups 215.113 250 .860 Total 223.465 253 Notes Between Groups Within Groups Total 6.618 296.473 303.091 3 250 253 2.206 1.186 1.860 .137 Guided workshops Between Groups 3.723 3 1.241 1.536 .206 Within Groups 201.978 250 .808 Total 205.701 253 Mentoring Between Groups 2.806 3 .935 .963 .411 Within Groups 242.741 250 .971 Total 245.547 253 Employee assistance Between Groups 2.680 3 .893 1.262 .288 Within Groups 177.068 250 .708 Total 179.748 253 Podcast Between Groups 7.453 3 2.484 2.085 .103 “to be continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 75 Within Groups 297.874 250 1.191 Total 305.327 253 Retrospective Between Groups .868 3 .289 .295 .829 Within Groups 245.545 250 .982 Total 246.413 253 Storytelling Between Groups 16.060 3 5.353 5.740 .001 Within Groups 233.153 250 .933 Total 249.213 253 Wikis Between Groups 6.811 3 2.270 1.715 .164 Within Groups 330.910 250 1.324 Total 337.720 253 There are statistically significant differences between the averages of the generations in the Extracts (MS = 2.784; F = 3.235; Sig. = .023) and Storytetlling (MS = 5.353; F = 5.704; Sig. = .001) while in the other possibilities there are no differences between the averages. Using post-hoc tests, we analyze which generations contribute the most to the differences in the variables Extracts and Storytelling. We find that statistically significant differences be- tween the average values of the variable Extracts occur between Baby-boom generation and Generation Y (MD = .477); between Baby-boom generation and Generation Z (MD = .763); between Generation X and Generation Z (MD = .522). Average values of the variable Ex- tracts fall from Baby-boom generation to Generation Z through Generations X and Y; there- fore, we conclude that the younger the generation, the less suitable it is on average for the transfer of knowledge through extracts of key knowledge from conversations, interviews, conferences. Statistically significant differences between the average values of the variable storytelling are between all pairs of generations, except between Generation X and Y, where these differences are not detectable (MD = .124). Also, in this variable, the average values fall from Baby- boom generation to Generation Z, so we conclude that the younger the generation, the less it corresponds to the average knowledge transfer through storytelling, with statistically signifi- cant differences in the 5 % risk level between Generation X and Y cannot be detected. Story- telling is used as a form of knowledge transfer for specific expertise among employees from different backgrounds. It should be pointed out that this is one of the oldest forms of infor- mation transfer - but for younger generations, this method of knowledge transfer may already be obsolete. Younger generations demand information that is fast, accurate, consistent, and unwilling to listen to long stories. Based on arithmetic means for all generations, we conclude that on average respondents are less suited to the transfer of knowledge for “podcast” (Mean = 2,74); "blog" or "web blog”, (Mean = 2,88) and most suitable for the “help of a colleague “(Mean = 4,03); “conversations” (Mean = 3,87; guided workshops (Mean = 3,84) and mentoring (Mean = 3,81). Respondents “continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 76 prefer personal forms of knowledge transfer to non-personal ones. Table 5. Post-hoc tests for the variables of various forms of knowledge-sharing between co-workers indicate to what extent it suits to you Dependent Variable (I) Which genera- tion do you belong to accord- ing to the year of your birth (J) Which genera- tion do you belong to according to the year of your birth Mean Differ- ence (I- J) Std. Error Sig. 95 % Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Blog Baby-boom Generation X -.199 .224 .376 -.64 .24 Generation Y -.396 .277 .154 -.94 .15 Generation Z -.258 .376 .494 -1.00 .48 Generation X Baby-boom .199 .224 .376 -.24 .64 Generation Y -.197 .213 .355 -.62 .22 Generation Z -.059 .332 .859 -.71 .59 Generation Y Baby-boom .396 .277 .154 -.15 .94 Generation X .197 .213 .355 -.22 .62 Generation Z .138 .369 .709 -.59 .87 Generation Z Baby-boom .258 .376 .494 -.48 1.00 Generation X .059 .332 .859 -.59 .71 Generation Y -.138 .369 .709 -.87 .59 Circles Baby-boom Generation X -.215 .208 .303 -.63 .20 Generation Y -.526 * .258 .043 -1.04 -.02 Generation Z -.093 .352 .792 -.79 .60 Generation X Baby-boom .215 .208 .303 -.20 .63 Generation Y -.311 .200 .121 -.71 .08 Generation Z .122 .312 .696 -.49 .74 Generation Y Baby-boom .526 * .258 .043 .02 1.04 Generation X .311 .200 .121 -.08 .71 Generation Z .433 .347 .213 -.25 1.12 Generation Z Baby-boom .093 .352 .792 -.60 .79 Generation X -.122 .312 .696 -.74 .49 Generation Y -.433 .347 .213 -1.12 .25 Sending messages Baby-boom Generation X .286 .217 .189 -.14 .71 Generation Y -.048 .269 .860 -.58 .48 Generation Z -.233 .367 .525 -.96 .49 Sending messages Generation X Baby-boom -.286 .217 .189 -.71 .14 Generation Y -.334 .209 .111 -.74 .08 Generation Z -.519 .325 .111 -1.16 .12 Generation Y Baby-boom .048 .269 .860 -.48 .58 Generation X .334 .209 .111 -.08 .74 Generation Z -.186 .362 .608 -.90 .53 Generation Z Baby-boom .233 .367 .525 -.49 .96 Generation X .519 .325 .111 -.12 1.16 Generation Y .186 .362 .608 -.53 .90 Records Baby-boom Generation X .228 .182 .211 -.13 .59 Generation Y .140 .226 .534 -.30 .58 Generation Z .074 .307 .811 -.53 .68 Generation X Baby-boom -.228 .182 .211 -.59 .13 Generation Y -.088 .175 .615 -.43 .26 Generation Z -.155 .272 .570 -.69 .38 Generation Y Baby-boom -.140 .226 .534 -.58 .30 Generation X .088 .175 .615 -.26 .43 Generation Z -.067 .303 .826 -.66 .53 Generation Z Baby-boom -.074 .307 .811 -.68 .53 Generation X .155 .272 .570 -.38 .69 Generation Y .067 .303 .826 -.53 .66 Talking Baby-boom Generation X -.163 .173 .347 -.50 .18 Generation Y -.287 .214 .181 -.71 .13 Generation Z .337 .291 .249 -.24 .91 Generation X Baby-boom .163 .173 .347 -.18 .50 Generation Y -.124 .166 .454 -.45 .20 Generation Z .499 .258 .054 -.01 1.01 Generation Y Baby-boom .287 .214 .181 -.13 .71 “to be continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 77 Generation X .124 .166 .454 -.20 .45 Generation Z .624 * .287 .031 .06 1.19 Talking Generation Z Baby-boom -.337 .291 .249 -.91 .24 Generation X -.499 .258 .054 -1.01 .01 Generation Y -.624 * .287 .031 -1.19 -.06 Summaries Baby-boom Generation X .241 .167 .151 -.09 .57 Generation Y .477 * .208 .022 .07 .89 Generation Z .763 * .283 .007 .21 1.32 Generation X Baby-boom -.241 .167 .151 -.57 .09 Generation Y .236 .161 .143 -.08 .55 Generation Z .522 * .251 .038 .03 1.02 Generation Y Baby-boom -.477 * .208 .022 -.89 -.07 Generation X -.236 .161 .143 -.55 .08 Generation Z .286 .279 .307 -.26 .84 Generation Z Baby-boom -.763 * .283 .007 -1.32 -.21 Generation X -.522 * .251 .038 -1.02 -.03 Generation Y -.286 .279 .307 -.84 .26 Notes Baby-boom Generation X .191 .197 .332 -.20 .58 Generation Y .199 .244 .415 -.28 .68 Generation Z -.458 .332 .169 -1.11 .20 Generation X Baby-boom -.191 .197 .332 -.58 .20 Generation Y .008 .189 .966 -.36 .38 Generation Z -.649 * .294 .028 -1.23 -.07 Generation Y Baby-boom -.199 .244 .415 -.68 .28 Generation X -.008 .189 .966 -.38 .36 Generation Z -.657 * .328 .046 -1.30 -.01 Generation Z Baby-boom .458 .332 .169 -.20 1.11 Generation X .649 * .294 .028 .07 1.23 Generation Y .657 * .328 .046 .01 1.30 Guided workshops Baby-boom Generation X .189 .162 .246 -.13 .51 Generation Y .048 .201 .813 -.35 .44 Generation Z .533 .274 .053 -.01 1.07 Generation X Baby-boom -.189 .162 .246 -.51 .13 Generation Y -.141 .156 .367 -.45 .17 Generation Z .345 .243 .157 -.13 .82 Generation Y Baby-boom -.048 .201 .813 -.44 .35 Generation X .141 .156 .367 -.17 .45 Generation Z .486 .270 .074 -.05 1.02 Generation Z Baby-boom -.533 .274 .053 -1.07 .01 Generation X -.345 .243 .157 -.82 .13 Generation Y -.486 .270 .074 -1.02 .05 Mentoring Baby-boom Generation X .016 .178 .929 -.33 .37 Generation Y -.234 .221 .289 -.67 .20 Generation Z .189 .300 .529 -.40 .78 Generation X Baby-boom -.016 .178 .929 -.37 .33 Generation Y -.250 .171 .145 -.59 .09 Generation Z .174 .266 .515 -.35 .70 Generation Y Baby-boom .234 .221 .289 -.20 .67 Generation X .250 .171 .145 -.09 .59 Generation Z .424 .296 .154 -.16 1.01 Generation Z Baby-boom -.189 .300 .529 -.78 .40 Generation X -.174 .266 .515 -.70 .35 Generation Y -.424 .296 .154 -1.01 .16 Employee assistance Baby-boom Generation X -.014 .152 .928 -.31 .29 Generation Y -.288 .188 .127 -.66 .08 Generation Z -.026 .257 .918 -.53 .48 Employee assistance Generation X Baby-boom .014 .152 .928 -.29 .31 Generation Y -.274 .146 .061 -.56 .01 Generation Z -.013 .227 .956 -.46 .44 Generation Y Baby-boom .288 .188 .127 -.08 .66 Generation X .274 .146 .061 -.01 .56 Generation Z .262 .253 .302 -.24 .76 Generation Z Baby-boom .026 .257 .918 -.48 .53 Generation X .013 .227 .956 -.44 .46 Generation Y -.262 .253 .302 -.76 .24 Podcast Baby-boom Generation X .063 .197 .748 -.32 .45 Generation Y .511 * .244 .037 .03 .99 Generation Z .135 .333 .685 -.52 .79 Generation X Baby-boom -.063 .197 .748 -.45 .32 “to be continued” “continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 78 Generation Y .448 * .189 .019 .07 .82 Generation Z .072 .295 .808 -.51 .65 Generation Y Baby-boom -.511 * .244 .037 -.99 -.03 Generation X -.448 * .189 .019 -.82 -.07 Generation Z -.376 .328 .253 -1.02 .27 Generation Z Baby-boom -.135 .333 .685 -.79 .52 Generation X -.072 .295 .808 -.65 .51 Generation Y .376 .328 .253 -.27 1.02 Retrospective Baby-boom Generation X .029 .179 .872 -.32 .38 Generation Y .086 .222 .697 -.35 .52 Generation Z .258 .302 .394 -.34 .85 Generation X Baby-boom -.029 .179 .872 -.38 .32 Generation Y .058 .172 .738 -.28 .40 Generation Z .229 .268 .393 -.30 .76 Generation Y Baby-boom -.086 .222 .697 -.52 .35 Generation X -.058 .172 .738 -.40 .28 Generation Z .171 .298 .566 -.42 .76 Retrospective Generation Z Baby-boom -.258 .302 .394 -.85 .34 Generation X -.229 .268 .393 -.76 .30 Generation Y -.171 .298 .566 -.76 .42 Storytelling Baby-boom Generation X .352 * .174 .044 .01 .70 Generation Y .476 * .216 .029 .05 .90 Generation Z 1.200 * .294 .000 .62 1.78 Generation X Baby-boom -.352 * .174 .044 -.70 -.01 Generation Y .124 .168 .460 -.21 .45 Generation Z .848 * .261 .001 .33 1.36 Generation Y Baby-boom -.476 * .216 .029 -.90 -.05 Generation X -.124 .168 .460 -.45 .21 Generation Z .724 * .290 .013 .15 1.30 Generation Z Baby-boom -1.200 * .294 .000 -1.78 -.62 Generation X -.848 * .261 .001 -1.36 -.33 Generation Y -.724 * .290 .013 -1.30 -.15 Wikis Baby-boom Generation X -.003 .208 .989 -.41 .41 Generation Y -.397 .258 .124 -.90 .11 Generation Z -.388 .351 .270 -1.08 .30 Generation X Baby-boom .003 .208 .989 -.41 .41 Generation Y -.394 * .200 .049 -.79 .00 Generation Z -.385 .311 .217 -1.00 .23 Generation Y Baby-boom .397 .258 .124 -.11 .90 Generation X .394 * .200 .049 .00 .79 Generation Z .010 .346 .978 -.67 .69 Generation Z Baby-boom .388 .351 .270 -.30 1.08 Generation X .385 .311 .217 -.23 1.00 Generation Y -.010 .346 .978 -.69 .67 * The mean difference (MD) is significant at the 0.05 level. 5 Discussion In research question 1, we analyzed the importance of cooperation between colleagues, where we asked respondents to assess (1) the extent to which mutual advice and transfer of ideas and information about work represent an important part of the responsibility of an individual em- ployee; (2) the extent to which they do the work faster and more efficiently on their own than in a team of colleagues; (3) the extent to which helping an employee to get the job done faster also benefits of individuals; (4) the extent to which it is important to share work experience and knowledge with colleagues; (5) the extent to which personal contact with colleagues is a desirable way of transferring knowledge and experience; and (6) the extent to which an individual needs to have a relationship with co-workers in which he or she can openly share his or her feelings about working together. With the statement "To what extent the statement applies to you" have been measured on a “continued” Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 79 scale between 1 and 5 (1 ... not true at all, 5 ... absolutely true). The median of the respond- ents' scores were between 3 and 5, and the arithmetic means were between 2.96 and 4.49. All but one of the variables (i.e., I do the work faster and more efficiently on my own than in a team of co-workers) have a negative asymmetry coefficient, indicating some asymmetry to the left compared to the normal distribution. Flattening coefficients are positive for all but one variable (I do the work faster and more efficiently on my own than in a team of co-workers), suggesting more pointed distributions compared to the normal distribution. Respondents, on average, agreed with all the statements to a greater extent, except for the variable I do the work faster and more efficiently on my own than in the team of co-workers, where they agreed only to a moderate extent. This finding is not surprising, as all variables, except the one mentioned, contained claims about the importance of relationships and mutual cooperation at work, while the mentioned variable advocates the opposite, more individual approach. Research question 1:Are different approaches needed to motivate different generations of employees to collaborate? Here we found statistically significant differences between the generation averages for the statement: It is important for me to share my work experience and knowledge with co-workers. In contrast, in other statements, there were no significant differ- ences between the averages. Where characteristic differences did not occur, we concluded that different motivational tools for different generations are not required, as they have a very sim- ilar impact on all ages. We used post-hoc tests to analyze which generations contributed the most to the differences concerning the responses to the statement. It is important for me to share my work experience and knowledge with my colleagues. We found that Generation Z, which is significantly less motivated than the other generations, contributed the most to the differences, while we did not detect any significant differences for this statement for the other three generations. We conclude that the same motivational tools regarding the sharing of ex- perience and knowledge among co-workers had the least effect on Generation Z, while the impacts on the other three generations were very similar. Although we did not detect signifi- cant differences between the averages of all groups in the other statements, we perceived some partial differences by averages between the Baby-boom Generation and Generation Y for the statement I believe that mutual advice and transfer of ideas and information about work is an important part of my responsibility (for which the Baby-boom Generation feels more motivated on average), and between Generations Y and Z for the statement It is im- portant to me to have a relationship with co-workers in which I can openly share my feelings about our work (for which Generation Z feels less motivated on average). We especially want to highlight the aspect of motivating individual employees for coopera- tion, where respondents answered very bimodally about how they wanted to highlight their achievements at work: about the same percentage of respondents did not want their achieve- ments to be publicly announced in the organization (39 %), and those who found it important that co-workers became acquainted with their achievements (48 %). Since the results showed Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 80 no statistically significant differences between the generations on this issue, we conclude that the motivational tool of praise of the employee by the employer for all four generations works very similarly. This means that praise requires a very individual approach. Certain employees did not want their achievements to be exposed, and public praise could mean demotivation. Meanwhile, it was important for others to become acquainted with them and that there were criteria for defining achievement, as achievement affects an organization's common goals, and therefore public non-recognition of praise would be demotivating. Research question 2: Do different generations of employees differ in the desired way of ac- quiring and sharing knowledge? There were statistically significant differences between the averages of the generations in Summaries and Storytelling, while there are no differences between the averages for the other possibilities. We found that statistically significant differences between the average values for Summaries occured between the Baby-boom Generation and Generation Y, the Baby-boom Generation and Generation Z, and between Generations X and Z. The average values for Summaries fell from the Baby-boom Generation to Generation Z, so we concluded that the younger a generation was, the less it enjoyed knowledge-sharing with regard to Summaries. Statistically significant differences between the mean values for storytelling existed between all generations, except between Generations X and Y, where these differences were not detectable. Moreover, the average values fell from the Baby-boom Generation to Generation Z, so we concluded that the younger the generation, the less interested in knowledge-sharing through storytelling. Based on the arithmetic means for all generations, we concluded that the respondents were on average less suited for knowledge-sharing via podcasts or blogs and most suited for learning and sharing knowledge based on help from colleagues, conversations, guided workshops and mentoring. The results also indicated that the respondents prefer personal forms of knowledge-sharing to non-personal ones. It should be pointed out that this research had certain limitations as that the conclusions based on the results are also limited. Selective sample should be taken into account as this research only included one organization and individuals from this particular organization motivated to participate, so the sample is not representative of the Slovenian working population educational and gender structure. The small sample of generation Z should also be mentioned, as it means there were limitations in the conclusions of statistical analyses, as the sample of generation Z did not represent the statistically robust group. The main limitation of this re- search was the failure to consider an individual's characteristic, organizational climate, and communication pattern among different departments. At the same time, the focal organization operates in different geographical locations, as this can play an important role in intergenera- tional cooperation and knowledge-sharing. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 81 6 Conclusion In this article, we examined intergenerational cooperation and knowledge-sharing at work. It is of great importance for organizations to encourage the continuous learning of employees and knowledge-sharing among them. We have categorized various forms of training that organizations can use to share knowledge among employees. We performed a critical analysis of the favoured approaches of different generations for cooperation and knowledge-sharing at Organisation X, with more than 2,000 employees. This organization deals with technological solutions intended for both business and private customers and is therefore necessarily engaged in a market with constant and rapid changes. To answer the research question of whether different approaches are needed to motivate different generations of employees to collaborate, we found that it is least important for Gen- eration Z to share their work experience and knowledge with co-workers. However for all of the following four generations gave positive responses: that mutual advice and transfer of ideas and information about work is an important part of the employee's responsibility, that work is done faster in a team, that helping a co-worker brings benefits, that a personal contact is a desirable form of knowledge-sharing, and that it is good to have relationships and be able to turn to colleagues to share advice and knowledge. Concerning whether different generations of employees differ in their desired way of acquir- ing and transferring knowledge, the results showed that podcasts or blogs for knowledge- sharing were seen as less appropriate by the respondents, who prefer peer support, interviews, guided workshops, and mentoring. The respondents thus prefer personal forms of knowledge- sharing to non-personal ones. The results for all the selected forms of knowledge-sharing in the focal organization were roughly the same across the generations, except for Summaries and Storytelling, where we found that the younger the generation, the less they were interested in knowledge-sharing in these ways. 'With age diversity increasing in society, organization face the challenge of reconstructing the learning processes' (Prelog & Ismagilova & Boštjančič, 2019, p. 64) and encouraging the knowledge-sharing among the different generations. Therefore, each organization needs to determine the preferred form of knowledge-sharing in each specific environment and choose a form that suits both the employees who provide information and those who receive it. The concept of intergenerational cooperation in the workplace includes knowledge-sharing among staff and a shift from knowledge-sharing to co-creating knowledge. We believe this shift is of key importance for further development of human capital as well as knowledge accumulation in the organization. Therefore, the area of co-creating knowledge should represent the future ambitions of every organization and research's communities. Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 82 References 1. Annual Report of Company X. (2016). Retrieved from website of Company X 2. Annual Report of Company X. (2017). Retrieved from website of Company X 3. Annual Report of Company X. (2018). Retrieved from website of Company X 4. Bal, P., Kooij, D., & Rousseau, D. (2018). Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 5. Bjursel, C. (2019). Inclusion in education later in life: Why older adults engage in education activi- ties. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, Vol.10, No.3, 2019, pp. 215-230. DOI:10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela20192 6. Brečko, D. (2018). Motivacija odraslih za pridobivanje in nadgradnjo znanja. Ljubljana: Andragoški center Slovenije. 7. Brečko, D. (2019). Motivacija zaposlenih za pridobivanje in obnavljanje znanja. S svetovanjem za zaposlene do večje vključenost i v izobraževanje in usposabljanje (str. 82–101). Ljubljana: Andragoški center Slovenije. 8. Cigno, A. (2005). The political economy of intergenerational cooperation; CESifo working paper no. 1632. Firence: Faculty of Political Science, University of Florence. 9. Debeljak, T., Komljen, I., & Tomat, N. (2017). Starejši zaposleni o stanju izobraževanja starejših zaposlenih na delovnem mestu v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 10. Dill, K. (2019). 7 things employers should know about the Gen Z workforce. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2015/11/06/7-things-employers-should-know-about-the- gen-z-workforce/#2598a95afad7 11. Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnem okviru za enako obravnavanje pri zaposlovanju in poklicu. (2000). Uradni list L 303, 02/12/2000, pp. 16 - 22. 12. Dolenec, D. (2018). Prihod generacije Z. Retrieved from https://psihologijadela.com/2018/01/24/prihod-generacije-z/ 13. Dolot, A. (2018). The characteristics of Generation Z. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.15219/em74.1351 14. European Commission. (2011). Transferability of Skills across Economic Sectors: Role and Im- portance for Employment at European Level. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294260822_Transferability_of_Skills_across_Economic_ Sectors 15. Hsu, I.C. (2006). Enhancing Employee Tendencies to Share Knowledge - Case Studies of Nine Companies in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 26 (4), 326-338. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.03.001 16. International Labour Organization. (2013). Global employment trends for youth 2013. Ženeva: International Labour Office. 17. International standard ISO 10018:2012. Quality management - Guidelines on people's involvement and competence. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 18. Internal material of Company X. (2018, 2019). Retrieved from Archive of Company X 19. Jiacheng, W. Lu, L. & Francesco, C.A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 2020-230. DOI: 0.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.08.007 20. King, E., Finkelstein, L., Thomas, C., & Corrington, A. (2019). Generational differences at work are small. Thinking they're big affects our behavior. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/08/generational-differences-at-work-are-small-thinking-theyre-big-affects-our- Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 83 behavior 21. Kronos Incorporated. (2019). Meet Gen Z. The next generation is here: Hopeful, anxious, hard- working, and searching for inspiration. Retrieved from https://workforceinstitute.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/Meet-Gen-Z-Hopeful-Anxious-Hardworking-and-Searching-for- Inspiration.pdf 22. Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah. (2012). Uradni list UL C, 26. 10. 2012, str. 391 - 407. 23. 23. Maj, J. (2015). Age management in enterprises: CSR or a necessity? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286077807_Age_management_in_Polish_enterprises_CS R_or_a_necessity 24. McCrindle, M. (2020). Why we named them Gen Alpha. Retrieved from https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blogarchive/why-we-named-them-gen-alpha/ 25. Piktialis, D., & Greenes, K. (2008). Bridging the Gaps: How to transfer knowledge in today's mul- tigenerational workforce. Canada: The Conference Board, Inc. Retrieved from www.conference- board.org/kt 26. Pontefract, D. (2018). Millenials and Gen Z have lost trust and loyalty with business. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2018/06/03/millennials-and-gen-z-have-lost- trust-and-loyalty-with-business/#7cbe23366145 27. Prelog N. & Ismagilova, F. S. & Boštjančič, E. (2019). Which employees are most motivated to share knowledge - the role of age-based differentiation in knowledge-sharing motivation. Changing Societies & Personalities, Vol 3., No.1, pp. 52-67. DOI:10.15826/csp.2019.3.1.060 28. Rozman, R., & Kovač, J. (2012). Management. Ljubljana: GV Založba. 29. Speer, L. (2011). Four generations working together in the workforce and in higher education. Tennessee: East Tennessee State University. 30. Stahl, A. (2018). Gen Z: What To expect from the new workforce. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2018/09/26/gen-z-what-to-expect-from-the-new-work- force/#557c058863e0 31. Stillman, D., & Stillman, J. (2017). Gen Z Work - How the next generation is transforming the workplace. HarperCollins. 32. Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Minnesota: Research and training center on community living, University of Minnesota. 33. Tros, F., & Keune, M. (2016). Intergenerational bargaining in the EU. Amsterdam Institute for Advanced labour Studies (AIAS). Nizozemska: University of Amsterdam. 34. United Nations. (2017). World Population Ageing. New York: United Nations. 35. Yanhan, Z. (2013). Individual behavior: in-role and extra-role. International journal of business administration. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v4n1p23 *** Danijela Brečko, has been the Executive Director at Sofos, the Institute for Knowledge Management and Talent Development, since 2014. She finished her PhD at the University of Ljubljana (Faculty of Arts), where she pre- viously obtained a master's degree in adult personal development. She is Assistant Professor for Management at MLC Ljubljana - Faculty of Management and Law and Assistant Professor of Education and Human Resources Management at Doba Faculty. Her research focuses mainly on Leadership and Human Resources management. She participates in international research projects with the researchers from EMCC Global, Atiner from Greece, Institute for HRM, Prague… Since 2016 she has been leading the national project Organizational Energy, where she co-ordinates 16 development partners. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0221-606X. *** Izzivi prihodnosti / Challenges of the Future, Članek / Article Maj / May 2021, leto / year 6, številka / number 2, str. / pp. 61–84. 84 Povzetek: Medgeneracijsko sodelovanje, učenje in izmenjava znanja na delovnem mestu Ozadje in izvirnost: Članek se osredotoča na vprašanje organizacij, ki se soočajo z izzivom vzpostavitve delovnega okolja, ki bo prilagojeno značilnostim različnih generacij zaposlenih. Vsa- ka generacija na delovnem mestu mora biti motivirana za delo, sodelovanje in izmenjavo znanja med sodelavci različnih starosti. O motivaciji na delovnem mestu je bilo opravljenih veliko ra- ziskav, vendar nismo zasledili raziskave o vplivu različnih učnih oblik, da bi motivirali različne generacije za sodelovanje in izmenjavo znanja na delovnem mestu, ne v slovenskem ne v svetov- nem merilu. Metoda: V tej študiji preučujemo dve raziskovalni vprašanji: Ali so potrebni različni pristopi za motiviranje različnih generacij zaposlenih k sodelovanju in ali se različne generacije razlikujejo v želenih načinih pridobivanja in izmenjave znanja. Pri raziskovanju smo se naslonili na Piktialis in Greenes (2008) kategorizacijo oblik učenja in izmenjave znanja pri delu. Pri kritični oceni moti- vacije za medgeneracijsko sodelovanje in izmenjavo znanja smo uporabili kvantitativno ra- ziskovalno metodo. Raziskava je bila izvedena na naključnem vzorcu med zaposlenimi v izbranem podjetju z 2.000 zaposlenimi, na anketo pa se je odzvalo 334. Rezultati: Rezultati so pokazali, da je za predstavnike generacije Z najmanj pomembno, da svoje znanje in delovne izkušnje delijo s kolegi iz drugih generacij in da je za mlajše generacije (Y in Z) pri izmenjavi znanja manj primerno uporabljati pripovedovanje zgodb (primeri iz prakse, primer- jave, povzemanje izkušenj) in povzetke ključnih znanj (iz pogovorov, intervjujev, konferenc). Družba: Koncept medgeneracijskega sodelovanja na delovnem mestu vključuje izmenjavo znanja med zaposlenimi in prehod od izmenjave znanja k soustvarjanju znanja. Verjamemo, da je ta premik ključnega pomena za nadaljnji razvoj človeškega kapitala in tudi za potrebno akumulacijo znanja v organizaciji. Področje soustvarjanja znanja bi torej moralo predstavljati prihodnje ambi- cije vsake organizacije, pa tudi raziskovalnih skupnosti. Omejitve / nadaljnje raziskovanje: Upoštevati je treba selektivni vzorec, saj je raziskava vključevala samo eno organizacijo in posa- meznike iz te organizacije, ki so bili motivirani za sodelovanje. Omeniti je treba tudi majhen vzorec generacije Z. Glavna omejitev te raziskave je bila nezmožnost upoštevanja specifične or- ganizacijske klime in komunikacijskega vzorca posameznika med različnimi oddelki, medtem ko podjetje deluje na različnih geografskih lokacijah, saj lahko to igra pomembno vlogo pri medgen- eracijskem sodelovanju in izmenjavi znanja. Zato je ključno, da vsako podjetje v vsakem določenem okolju določi prednostno obliko izmenjave znanja in izbere obliko, ki ustreza tako zaposlenim, ki informacije posredujejo, kot tistim, ki jih prejmejo. To pa je tudi področje nadaljnjega raziskovanja; torej vpliv organizacijske klime in kulture na proces medgeneracijskega sodelovanja in izmenjave znanja. Ključne besede: generacije pri delu, medgeneracijsko sodelovanje, oblike medgeneracijskega učenja, delitev znanja, izmenjava znanja pri delu. Copyright (c) Danijela BREČKO Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.