Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

The Mutual Transmission <strong>of</strong> Knowledge and Competencies
between Generations: an enabler <strong>of</strong> Dynamic Capabilities
Sakura Shimada
Paris Dauphine University, France
Sakura.shimada@gmail.com
Abstract:: The purpose <strong>of</strong> this article is to propose a generational view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization in order to think about
<strong>the</strong> firm evolution between continuity and adaptation. Especially, we suggest that <strong>the</strong> “intergenerational
transmission <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies” may be an enabler <strong>of</strong> assets reconfiguration in <strong>the</strong> ambit <strong>of</strong>
dynamic capability. Since <strong>the</strong> 1980’s, <strong>the</strong> resource-based view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm (RBV) (Penrose 1959; Wernerfelt 1984;
Barney 1986) has pointed out <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> internal and idiosyncratic resources <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm to gain in competitive
advantage. Knowledge and competencies are regarded as being <strong>the</strong> main strategic assets that <strong>the</strong> firm should
identify, protect, exploit and renew. We sum up <strong>the</strong>se strategic assets in a four-stage systemic model, ranging
from <strong>the</strong> 1) individual knowledge and 2) competencies, to <strong>the</strong> 3) collective competencies and 4) organizational
capabilities. Yet, in a changing environment, firm has to evolve and transform itself in order to sustain its
competitive advantage. The ability <strong>of</strong> a firm to extend and modify its strategic assets to do so is called dynamic
capability (Teece and al. 1997; Helfat and al. 2007). However, <strong>the</strong> question about how, concretely, <strong>the</strong> assets
reconfiguration manifest itself in a local level has not been answered yet. This is an important issue, considering
<strong>the</strong> systemic and socially embedded nature <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies: <strong>the</strong>se are sticky assets (Szulanski
1996) that hardly evolve. Recently, <strong>the</strong> on-going retirement <strong>of</strong> baby boomers has emphasized <strong>the</strong> need <strong>of</strong> an
intergenerational transmission: it is fundamental to retain <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge and competencies which represent <strong>the</strong>
strategic assets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm. However, <strong>the</strong> one-way transmission from <strong>the</strong> elder to <strong>the</strong> younger is not sufficient to
ensure <strong>the</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm. The strategic assets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm also need adjusting and updating through time.
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> intergenerational transmission should be seen as a dynamic capability. Based on this parallelism,
we put forward that <strong>the</strong> concrete functioning <strong>of</strong> strategic assets reconfiguration may be observed through <strong>the</strong>
analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intergenerational transmission <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies. Then, we try to define <strong>the</strong>
concept <strong>of</strong> generation so as to explain <strong>the</strong> issues related to <strong>the</strong> strategic assets reconfiguration. Two generational
concepts in management are identified and rejected: <strong>the</strong> “societal generation” and <strong>the</strong> “life cycle generation”. A
third and new concept <strong>of</strong> generation is proposed: <strong>the</strong> “generation <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competences” which refers to
a group <strong>of</strong> people representing a homogeneous area <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies. Building on this definition,
we advocate that <strong>the</strong> intergenerational transmission may act as an enabler <strong>of</strong> firm assets reconfiguration between
continuity and adaptation. Then, a better understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> former could contribute to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
latter. Implications for future research are discussed.
Keywords: generation, knowledge, competence, dynamic capability, <strong>the</strong> resource-based view
1. Introduction
Since <strong>the</strong> 1980’s, <strong>the</strong> resource-based view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm (RBV) (Penrose 1959, Wernerfelt 1984; Barney
1986) has pointed out <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> internal and idiosyncratic resources <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm to gain in competitive
advantage. In <strong>the</strong> 1990’s, <strong>the</strong> RBV evolved in two directions. One stream <strong>of</strong> research developed
focusing on <strong>the</strong> resource knowledge, while ano<strong>the</strong>r turned to <strong>the</strong> resource competencies. The vision
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> competitive advantage increased in dynamism, and <strong>the</strong> collective and tacit dimensions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
strategic assets were emphasized. The renewal and update <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies are
recognized as being as important as <strong>the</strong>ir acquisition and protection, and <strong>the</strong> notion <strong>of</strong> dynamic
capability (Teece and al. 1997) has become a key topic in <strong>the</strong> strategic management field <strong>of</strong> research.
It refers to <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> a firm to extend, reconfigure and modify its strategic assets so as to adapt to
its changing environment (Helfat and al. 2007).
The notion <strong>of</strong> dynamic capability was first popularized by Teece and al. (1997). Since <strong>the</strong>ir article,
specifications and alternative definitions have been given (Eisenhardt and al. 2000; Zollo & Winter
2002; Wang and Ahmed 2007), and <strong>the</strong> concept is becoming key to <strong>the</strong> strategic management field <strong>of</strong>
research. Helfat and al. (2007: 4) proposed a syn<strong>the</strong>sis definition by discussing previous research: "A
dynamic capability is <strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong> an organization to purposefully create, extend, or modify its
resource base”. Empirical studies keep extending and examples <strong>of</strong> organizational and managerial
processes which constitute dynamic capabilities have been illustrated (see Helafat and al. 2007,
Teece 2007).
Yet, beginning in <strong>the</strong> 1990s, research in dynamic capabilities is relatively new (Helfat and Peteraf
2009; Di Stefano and al. 2010). Thus, research has been mainly dealing with <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oretical
foundations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approach: <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> dynamic capabilities (Teece 2007)
1073