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

Sakura Shimada
broader repercussion on <strong>the</strong> system. Note that <strong>the</strong> strategic assets system never being static, <strong>the</strong>
determination <strong>of</strong> intergenerational boundaries is somewhat arbitrary. If generations <strong>of</strong> knowledge and
competencies can be identified, it is necessarily in respect to a specific aspect. Depending on which
criteria we focalize on, <strong>the</strong>re may or not be a distinction between two generations. The following figure
3 summarizes <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> generation <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies.
Figure 3: The generation <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies
4. The intergenerational transmission <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies:
toward a smooth reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> strategic assets
In <strong>the</strong> previous sections, we clarified our vision <strong>of</strong> organizational strategic assets, and <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong>
generation in relation to <strong>the</strong>m. In our view, a significant change in <strong>the</strong> organizational strategic assets
results in <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> two distinct “generations <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies” within <strong>the</strong>
organization. The coexistence <strong>of</strong> different generations is a problem for <strong>the</strong> organization, as this means
a discontinuity and a disparity in its strategic assets, and in <strong>the</strong> worst case, a mismatch among <strong>the</strong>m.
The old generation still participates in <strong>the</strong> strategic assets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization, but henceforth, a part <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> knowledge and competencies it represents is out-dated.
Then, different options are available for <strong>the</strong> firm.
First, <strong>the</strong> firm may leave <strong>the</strong> renewal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se out-dated strategic assets to <strong>the</strong> “natural” turnover <strong>of</strong> its
employee due to <strong>the</strong> retirement. The old generation would be assigned to <strong>the</strong> old knowledge and
competencies without future, and <strong>the</strong> new generation to <strong>the</strong> developing strategic assets. In this
generational division <strong>of</strong> labor, firm not only keeps <strong>the</strong> obsolete strategic assets, but <strong>the</strong>se assets may
also contradict <strong>the</strong> new ones. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> different patterns <strong>of</strong> work between generations risks to
degenerate into some intergenerational conflicts (Beaud and Pialoux 1999; Cultiaux 2006; Le Roux
2006; Flamant 2005; Delay 2008; Vendramin and Cultiaux 2008).
Second, <strong>the</strong> firm may lay <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> old generation. However, strategic assets are rarely
modified as a whole, so <strong>the</strong> old generation probably excels in o<strong>the</strong>r fields: a generation is older than
ano<strong>the</strong>r, in reference to a specific domain <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies. Even after a major
change, <strong>the</strong> new generation still needs to learn from its elder to preserve <strong>the</strong> continuity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
organizational strategic assets. If <strong>the</strong> firm let go <strong>the</strong> old generation, it will not only lose a part <strong>of</strong> its
strategic assets, but it will also lose <strong>the</strong> opportunity to pass <strong>the</strong> knowledge and competencies on to
<strong>the</strong> next generation. Moreover, <strong>the</strong>se two options are not tenable solutions in a rapidly and constantly
changing environment, both from an economic and social point on view.
Finally, <strong>the</strong> firm can choose to proceed to an intergenerational transmission <strong>of</strong> knowledge and
competencies, in order to preserve traditional strategic assets while adapting <strong>the</strong> old ones. Then, <strong>the</strong>
transmission cannot be reduced to a replacement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> old by <strong>the</strong> new. When new knowledge or
competencies are introduced into <strong>the</strong> organization, <strong>the</strong>re is no warranty that <strong>the</strong>y will integrate well
into <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system. In order to ensure <strong>the</strong> global coherence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system, any change in <strong>the</strong>
strategic assets requires at least some minor adaptations <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r elements. There needs to be a coconstruction
<strong>of</strong> a new strategic asset system by <strong>the</strong> two generations. The intergenerational
transmission <strong>of</strong> knowledge and competencies is dialectic between stability and change. It enables
organizational adaptation in its continuity.
1078