The Importance Of Development In Organizational...
FinalReportMentorshipinFPLS
1. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
Enhancing Lean
A Mentorship Case Study at the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries
Division of Fraud Prevention & Labor Standards
March 10, 2016
Jeremy Payne and Warren Wessling
The Evergreen State College
Masters of Public Administration (MPA)
Faculty Advisor: Amy Leneker
Consultant(s): Damon Drown, PhD; Cheryl Simrell-King, PhD
“Mentoring is a fundamental form of human development where one
person invests time, energy and personal know-how in assisting the
growth and ability of another person” (Gordon, 2002, p.3).
2. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
2
Abstract:
This case study attempts to illustrate how mentorship relationships in the public sector can be
beneficial not just for the protégé, but also for the mentor and more importantly the organization
as a whole. We use Peter Senge’s groundbreaking text The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice
of the Learning Organization as the foundation on which our study was developed. We were able
to display gaps in the current organizational structure, that team learning is the largest gap, and
how further research will allow the research team to identify possible strategies for
implementation into the organization’s collective training plan.
3. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
3
Executive Summary:
Developing a definitive mentorship structure is one path towards enriching the lives of
public agency employees as well as building organizational capacity via human-to-human
relationships in our ever-increasing fast paced world. Dynamic change and increasingly complex
problems demand equally as dynamic and complex organizations to manage them. For over 25
years, Peter Senge has developed organizations like these through the implementation of his Five
Disciplines that create a learning organization structure. Private industry has observed the benefit
of this model in many ways, but the Public sector continues to be mainly responsive and
reactionary.
The reactionary nature of the public sector hinders its ability to develop strong, dynamic
systems that evolve with the developments around it. The development of the next generation of
leaders is slowed by these reactionary hiring practices, burdensome workloads, inadequate leader
training emphasis, and a general lack of resources. Public agencies are losing a wealth of
knowledge and experience, and through the course of this study we present the way in which the
learning organization model can aide public agencies to becoming more dynamic. We explain
the relationship between learning organizations and the current Lean initiative, and show the
benefit of weaving an organizational learning culture into the developing common language and
successful implementation of the Lean manufacturing process.
Literature Review
How do public agencies enhance effectiveness by empowering all employees through
building strong teams and enabling a culture of learning? Studies in the private sector suggest
this dynamic culture can be created through knowledge sharing, ‘flattening organizations’, and
leveraging human capital. In the public sector today it is nearly essential to care for our agencies
through developing systems to maintain current organizational knowledge, often referenced as
Information Transfer (IT). IT is an essential aspect of Senge’s learning organization disciplines.
Information must be quickly passed from managers to line workers and back in order for any
organization to develop shared vision, much less develop systems thinking. The implementation
of a learning organization model or at the very least an increase in information sharing from
lower level employees, is shown to increase productivity and provide organizations with the
ability to manage dynamic change more successfully (Brown & Brudney, 2003).
Organizational change is a well discussed topic in public administration and multiple
tactics, techniques, and tools are in current implementation throughout public sector agencies
across the nation. Within State agencies, the current climate of independence in hand with
increasingly dynamic change suggests it is more vital than ever for organizations to transition
into learning organizations (Senge, 1990, p.69). As researchers we have come to understand the
extreme importance towards developing, implementing, and sustaining a learning organization
however there seem to be certain restrictions or concerns against these efforts.
In 2013, Cummings et al. report the following obstacles in their study about knowledge
transfer from ‘Boomers’, [It] consisted of perception of value, communication, retrieving
knowledge and documents, lean staffing, workload/busy/distractions, staff turnover/retention,
4. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
4
procedure changes, lack of looking for knowledge or knowing what employees do not know.
Success of knowledge sharing processes depends on management innovations that recognize that
interaction of a variety of factors that facilitate or impede knowledge sharing activities (Zhang,
Faerman, & Cresswell, 2006, p.1). The humanization of these innovations may be incorporated
within an agency through developing mentoring relationships that focus on both the transfer of
knowledge and building a common network of quality employee’s ala “getting the right people
on the bus”.
The public sector has experienced an on-going transition from a mechanized system as
described in Kurt Vonnegut’s Player Piano where employees are simply cogs in a very
hierarchical structure, to a more motivated workforce that embraces creativity, individualism,
and collaborative work efforts. As William Bridges notes regarding change management “How
can we make this transition between the old and the new not only bearable but a time during
which the organization and everyone’s place in it are enhanced? How can we come out of this
waiting time better than we were before the transition started?” (p. 52). Our research focuses on
this change as an important time in the transition to guide leaders towards integrating the
principles of the Five Disciplines.
Senge describes dialogue as the method for which to hold a lens to your own thoughts to
really understand conversation between yourself and another colleague (p.227). It is highly
important for members of an organization to recognize their own role in the building of a
learning organization and often the first step is taking a long hard look in the mirror and
determining their role as a member of the team. Oftentimes, being self-reflective and congenial
provides an advantage to employees who thrive working in groups. Many of these employees are
thusly recognized for their contribution to the work team as they remain focused on the goals of
the team above self. The team efforts gain the respect and trust of team members and therefore
future projects and work groups increase in their effectiveness over time. In the State of
Washington, the culture of Lean manufacturing processes has taken hold and is creating
improved processes within the agency, some dramatic changes, some as subtle as moving a
copier to a more centralized location. The results are clear that employees are embracing their
ability to make suggestions and be a part of the improvements that provide better services for
customers. However, the lack of focus on team growth and development creates a gap in the full
development of a learning organization within FPLS (this will be explored further in subsequent
research).
Senge’s Learning Organizations provide the opportunity to develop a system that would
encourage knowledge transfer and overcome the obstacles presented by Cummings et al. These
five disciplines are not prescriptive practices; they are a foundation that when built on one
another allows for development of the whole. Together they [the Five Disciplines] work to
develop the careers of those in the organization, provide an opportunity for reflection and
alignment, and create the most opportune conditions for an organization’s success (Senge, 1990
p. 5-16). One such way that an organization can promote ‘becoming a learning organization’ is
by ensuring shared goals and visions are commonly repeated and well-known by all employees.
“Tapping and developing the potentials of people and organizations to create the
future rather than react to the present rests on two foundations; visions for the future and
an understanding of present reality. It is through information transfer, more specifically
mentorship dynamics, that this can be fully realized” (Senge 2008, p. 50).
5. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
5
Another substantial way is to build a mentorship program that ensures knowledge transfer
between the elder employees preparing to leave the organization and the often younger front-line
employees that will replace these mid-level leaders.
We hypothesize that developing mentors within FPLS will likely increase employee
engagement scores and thereby increase retention rates and narrow the gap of knowledge
transfer. As part of the overall agency goal of “Making L&I an Employer of Choice” (found in
Appendix II). We believe that mentorship within the division will enhance the current Lean
methodologies by empowering front-line employees via open lines of communication and
building a culture of trust. Employees engaged in higher tier decision making and knowledge
gained from the mentor/protégé relationship are indicators towards establishing a learning
organization.
Senge suggests three factors must be present for a learning organization to thrive:
1) finding values in one’s work through personal values;
2) relationships with colleagues and co-workers instead of managers; and
3) focus on problem-solving/finding and double-loop knowledge (Hale, 1996, p.423).
Some research suggests that performance and employee turnover is a key concern for
employee engagement and performance scores. However, according to a study by the United
Kingdom’s National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy
employee turnover is of least concern in the public sector and productivity may simply be an
effect of workplace training to enhance basic skills (Ananiadou et al, 2004, p.11). The scope of
our study remains less focused on performance and turnover and more focused on mentorship
models that enhance knowledge transfer and drive organizational growth, such as those
discussed by Allen, Brown, Hale, & Yang. As previously mentioned, Lean is built around the
third point from Hale (above). For instance, Lean posits that waste reduction and efficiencies
should be the priority within organizations. These principles do hold true for many organizations
but efficiency dismisses the importance of the human capital aspect of bureaucratic
administrative work.
Although Lean is a rather competent and effective tool, it does not focus on what we
believe is the most important aspect of organizational effectiveness and that is having highly
engaged employees with access to knowledge about the greater organizational goals and plans.
The results of Lean are compiled on an open-source website to provide transparency for the
public in the success of the Lean goals across Washington State agencies. It is worth noting that
the measure “Respect and Feedback” as a sub-component of “Accountable and Effective
Government” has made no recorded progress since Oct 2013, although the category of
“Employee Engagement” experienced a slight increase from 2013 – 2014 within the division of
FPLS. This is likely indicative of the focus on Lean and beginning to empower employees in the
organization to challenge their own thinking about their daily routines and work processes.
“Mentors provide young adults with career-enhancing functions, such as sponsorship,
coaching, facilitating exposure and visibility, and offering challenging work or
protection, all of which help the younger person to establish a role in the organization,
learn the ropes, and prepare for advancement” (Kram & Isabella, 1985, p.111).
6. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
6
A Gallup study notes “The attainment of a workplace with high-caliber employees starts
with the selection of the right people for the right jobs” (Harter et al, 2012, p.5). Whereas Lean is
a wonderful concept to incorporate front-line employees it should not be considered the “be-all,
end-all” approach to employee engagement and is shown in the year-over-year results of
employee engagement as the lowest recorded score in the division. Further, Lean is largely a
private sector process requiring employees to adapt to a new organizational language that may
take years to incorporate into the daily routines of employees. On the other hand, mentorship
models may be developed and implemented almost immediately and may continue to enhance
the success of the organization. As each employee builds success by helping one another succeed
with their individual goals the organizational tree may therefore bear the fruits of everyone’s
labor; enhancing the individual’s knowledge and building a learning organization where all
employees are successful.
Methodology – what we did, and why we did it
Our study focused on one division of approximately 180 employees within the
Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Fraud Prevention and Labor Standards
(FPLS). To determine the veracity and strength of mentorships within FPLS, and how FPLS will
benefit from an established model of mentorship within the Division we structured our research
on the following questions:
(1) Are there current formal and informal mentorship relationships?
(2) Are FPLS employees interested in mentorships? (positive or negative perceptions)
(3) Does mentorship correlate with positive workplace attributes?
(4) Are these potential correlations peer or traditional?
(5) How do potential correlations impact the division?
(6) How does FPLS create an internal mentoring system in place of an agency-wide program?
We developed a 40-question survey with some additional guidance from two
consultants¹. We used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly
Agree”. The original email with link to the survey was distributed from the Assistant Director in
an attempt to build support for the study. It was delivered via an agency-internal email system
and the initial survey was distributed on January 15, 2016 along with a reminder email sent on
January 20, 2016. This allowed participants on extended office leave to also participate in the
survey2
. It was closed on January 22, 2016 at midnight and received a total of 70 responses.
We received a response rate of nearly 40% (substantially less than expected), however
nearly 60% accessed the survey but many did not return for completion due to unknown reasons.
We speculated that potential respondents may have been discouraged from the disclaimer or
have a lack of interest due to being inundated by employee surveys throughout the agency
(during this research we took 2 additional “optional” survey’s that were agency wide). Two of
Mentors serve as a vital human resource within organizations. They help ensure the
transmission of knowledge to others, assist in the development of a competent workforce, and
provide a mechanism for organizational learning” (Allen, Lentz, & Day, 2006, p. 272).
7. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
7
the 70 responses were thrown out due to partial completion or providing overly consistent
responses such as all answers in one category of the Likert scale (i.e. 100% “strongly disagree”).
A thorough review of our initial survey data suggested the results were skewed or ‘too
rosy’; we felt the data may need to be thrown out. From the outset we sought to correlate
mentorships with positive employ responses throughout the survey. We prepared the data for
administering advanced multivariate analysis techniques, such as logistic regression, thus we
decided to clean and code the data to prepare for analysis using SPSS.
We tested the reliability of all scales and removed two survey questions from the analysis
(see Appendix I: role ambiguity #1 & team learning #2). Next, we ran a factor analysis after
dumping the original questions back into the 7 categories: team learning, shared vision, mental
models, personal mastery, systems thinking, role ambiguity, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. We combined the Likert-scores for each of our questions and developed 7 factors
based on our guiding research question: Do mentorship relationships exist within the Division?
Ultimately, we strove to identify the correlation that exists between mentored employee’s vs.
non-mentored employee’s and how specific attributes concerning OCB’s and Role Ambiguity
led to a more positive approach towards mentoring. However, due to the lower than expected
response rate the research team was unable to accurately run predictive analytics to determine
group membership associated with current mentorships. (A 15:1 ratio is a minimum requirement
to run logistics regression which required a minimum of 105 responses). Upon reducing the data
to factors, descriptive stats began to provide a clearer picture of responses as the individual
factors of team learning, role ambiguity, and shared values displayed negative leaning responses
of 31%, 18%, and 18% respectively.
1. Our team consulted with the agencies Organizational Psychologist whom provided proven scales for Role Ambiguity &
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors while we created our own questions concerning Peter Senge’s Five Disciplines of a
Learning Organization; team learning, shared values, mental models, personal mastery, and systems thinking.
2. The FPLS Division has a heavily increased workload during the Washington State Legislative session which is held annually
in January – March; this was taken into consideration and the survey was administered just prior to this in order to avoid
potential conflicts. There were concerns from agency staff, as well as our faculty advisor and consultants concerning ‘survey
overload’ as this is the typical method for acquiring employee input.
8. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
8
Findings – what we discovered, and future implications
The research team was able to identify three of the seven factors where potentially
negative responses pinpoint areas of growth towards developing a learning organization within
FPLS. Overall, the survey responses were largely ‘positive’, which was initially worrisome for
correlating negative and positive results. Due to the smaller than expected number of responses
we were unable to used advanced statistical analysis to associate individual traits with a
mentoring relationship. However, the team identified a small gap in team learning, shared
vision, and role ambiguity that leads the research team to believe that further research based on
individual interviews is the best method towards developing a program for the division to
implement as part of their collective training processes.
N = 68 team
learning
shared
vision
mental
models
personal
mastery
systems
thinking
role
ambiguity OCB’s
# of respondents
w/negative & neutral
response 21 12 5 2 5 12 6
% of respondents
w/negative & neutral
response 31% 18% 7% 3% 7% 18% 9%
# of respondents
w/negative ONLY
response 9 6 1 0 0 5 1
% of respondents
w/negative ONLY
response 13% 9% 1% 0% 0% 7% 1%
We further categorized the 7 factors into 2 distinct disciplines: individual and
cooperative. The survey results produced positive results oriented towards the individual
disciplines of mental models, personal mastery, and system thinking. Whereas, the more negative
results were modeled in the cooperative disciplines of team learning and shared vision. (we do
not discuss role ambiguity as this is out of scope for this study and may be enhanced by simply
increasing division focus in the cooperative disciplines).
Nearly 1/3rd
of respondents reported leaning negatively towards team learning, in other
words, the right hand does not often communicate well with the left. Additionally, about 1/5th
of
respondents’ report that shared vision could be improved. These results pinpoint a common and
oft cited concern within public administration: the silo. As many public administration
practitioners and academics alike understand is that a bureaucratic environment often requires a
system of checks and balances; commonly resulting in the dreaded silo effect. Although not
uncommon in other sector as well, silo’s has an especially adverse effect within public agencies
as decision makers typically require knowledge from many aspects of a program, requiring
cooperative efforts to sustain quality decisions across an organization.
9. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
9
Current conditions throughout the government sector in the U.S. has received continual
pressure to ‘operate more like a business’ in that reduced spending equals less taxes and fees that
need to be collected and therefore the average citizen keeps more of their hard-earned money.
This tightening of budgets has caused higher levels of stress due to ‘cutting dead weight’ and
‘heavier workloads’ – silo’s only serve to increase the angst and worry about the stability of a
once great job and concerns for new technologies and younger employee’s to replace these
bureaucratic workers operating in silos. However, the public sector does not need to respond to
these beacons and become overly concerned with that which they cannot effect.
It is the goal of our study to find solutions to any problems presented from our research
and our team is continuing to gain further insight into mentorship models that will work well for
the employees in FPLS as well as building interventions to increase team learning across the
division.
Conclusion
Our survey results found something that we weren’t necessarily looking for but found
anyways –all participants were somewhat interested in LEARNING. The subject matter was not
broached yet, generally speaking, all shows signs and interest in continuing to learn. A major
premise around the idea of mentorships is that both parties must be willing to learn and adapt. It
is important to recognize the value of already having employee’s that want to learn. It is a simple
matter of harnessing this willingness to learn by creating challenges and opportunities for all
employees in the division to embrace the concept of learning and thereby intuitively becoming a
learning organization. The great news is that we’ve already done the hard part – hired quality
people that can remain engaged and give back to their work communities. Now we move into the
action phase by planning for the future of fully developing a learning organization within FPLS.
At L&I, specifically within FPLS, mentorships may not be well known but nearly 50% of
respondents are in a current mentor or mentee while approximately 30% of respondents indicated
interest in a mentoring relationship. The survey results show that employees with low-tenure
(less than 5 years) are interested in gaining institutional knowledge while those employees with
high tenure (greater than 16 years) are interested in passing along their knowledge. These results
along with an assessment of the current leadership, suggests the window of opportunity to
initiate a mentor program within the division is wide open. These results along with additional
research will likely benefit the division and gain traction towards increasing employee
engagement in the division.
Our study will be continued through additional research in the form of individual
interviews. We believe that further insight from employee’s and a bottom driven approach
towards mentoring and building a team learning environment will be the most productive use of
10. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
10
our initial survey results and provide an opportunity for frontline workers to develop their own
collective training plans. We will conduct further research in the division with the intent to create
a handbook and checklist for managers and supervisors to encourage establishing mentorship
relationships throughout the division. Our individual interviews will focus on what best practices
have worked well in both L&I and other agencies and we’ll seek to adopt a sophisticated but
well understood model that is simple to follow the reproduce. Further, we will begin to look in-
depth at the team learning environment by conducting a literature review and ask questions
related to team learning in our interviews.
11. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
11
APPENDIX I – Survey Questions
distributed via www.surveygizmo.com
DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Age (categorical, 18-25, 26-30, 31-35,36-40,41-45,46-50,51-55,55+)
2. Tenure in agency (categorical, 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 20+)
3. Education: What is your level of education? (categorical, HS, Some College, BA, MA, Ph.D/J.D.)
LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS: (5-point Likert with 4 questions per discipline; team learning (TL), shared
vision (SV), mental models (MM), personal mastery (PM), systems thinking (ST))
1. My manager/supervisor/lead make employee development a priority? (TL)
2. My team values my opinions and willingness to provide critical feedback? (TL)
3. My team has a system to share material from training/meetings when others are unable to attend? (TL)
4. I am constantly learning new things from my coworkers? (TL)
5. My manager/supervisor/lead explains the larger picture of my daily work? (SV)
6. I am committed my role in the larger picture of my current work? (SV)
7. I communicate my personal career goals to my supervisor? (SV)
8. I discuss career goals with my coworkers and find common interests? (SV)
9. I know my strengths and they are leveraged for the benefit of the team? (MM)
10. I consider other’s perspective when making decisions for my team? (MM)
11. I understand the structure of my team and its role in the larger picture of the division? (MM)
12. I think about new ways to accomplish tasks to make my team more efficient? (MM)
13. I continuously develop my own skills to prepare for advancement opportunities? (PM)
14. My work is consistent with my personal values? (PM)
15. I consider my goals when completing work tasks? (PM)
16. I seek out information that will increase my knowledge, skills, and abilities? (PM)
17. I understand the effects of my actions within the goals of the Division? (ST)
18. I am encouraged to think about my work and the effect it has on our customers? (ST)
19. I know my work benefits my customers? (ST)
20. I know my work benefits the agency? (ST)
MENTORSHIP
1. I am currently in a mentorship relationship. (yes/no)
2. If yes, what do you gain from your mentorship relationship? (Fill)
3. I am not currently in a mentorship relationship, but would be interested in joining one.
4. If yes, I would want to be: (Mentor, Protégé, Peer Mentor)
5. What would you hope to gain from a mentorship relationship? (Fill)
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS (5-point Likert, testing workplace altruism)
1. I help others who have been absent.
2. I help others who have heavy workloads.
3. I assist the supervisor with his/her work (when not asked).
4. I take time to listen to co-workers’ problems and concerns.
5. I go out of the way to help new employees.
6. I pass information along to co-workers.
7. I take a personal interest in other employees.
ROLE AMBIGUITY (5-point Likert, testing awareness and fit within the organization)
1. I feel certain about how much authority I have.
2. Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my work.
3. I know when I have divided my time at work properly.
4. I know what my job responsibilities are.
5. I know exactly what is expected of me at this job.
6. I have clear expectations of what has to be done on a day to day basis.
12. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
12
APPENDIX II – Labor & Industries “Five Goals”
*This study focuses on a sub-component of Goal 5 “Ensure L&I is an employer of choice” – specifically
on employee engagement as an aspect of “increase opportunities for staff to learn and grow”.
14. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
14
Appendix IV – Bibliography
Allen, T. D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career Success Outcomes Associated With
Mentoring Others A Comparison of Mentors and Nonmentors. Journal of Career
Development, 32(3), 272-285.
Ananiadou, K., Emslie-Henry, R., Evans, K., & Wolf, A. (2004). “Identifying effective
workplace basic skills for strategies for enhancing employee productivity and development:
scoping and pilot study report”. National Research and Development Centre. Institute of
Education: London.
Bridges, William. (2009). Managing Transition: Making the Most of Change (3rd Ed.).
Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, Perseus Book Group. Print.
Brown, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Learning Organizations in the Public Sector? A
Study of Police Agencies Employing Information and Technology to Advance Knowledge.
Public Administration Review, 63(1), 30-43. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00262
Clapperton, Guy. (2010) “Mentoring and Leadership in the Public Sector”. The
Guardian.Accessed via http://www.theguardian.com/public-sector-training/mentoring-in-
the-public-sector
Cummings-White, I., & Diala, I. S. (2013). “Knowledge Transfer in a Municipality Study
on Baby Boomer Exodus from the Workforce”. International Journal of Computer
Applications Technology and Research, 2(3), 367-373. Accessed via
http://www.ijcat.com/archives/volume2/issue3/ijcatr02031029
Garvin David, A., Edmonson, Amy C., & Gino, Francesca. (2008). “Is Yours a Learning
Organization”. Harvard Business Review. March. Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization
Gordon, Shea F. (2002). Mentoring: How to Develop Successful Mentor Behaviors. A Crisp
50-Minute Series Book. Axzo Press.
Hale, M. M. (1996). Learning Organizations and Mentoring: Two Ways to Link Learning
and Workforce Development. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19(4), 422.
doi:10.2307/3381002
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring Alternatives: The Role of Peer
Relationships in Career Development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.
doi:10.2307/256064
Mahler, J. (1997). Influences of Organizational Culture on Learning in Public Agencies.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 519-540. doi:
10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024364
Meadows, Donella H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Wright, D. (Ed.). The
Sustainability Institute. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
15. Enhancing Lean: A Mentorship Case Study
15
Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How Do Public Organizations Learn? Bridging
Cultural and Structural Perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097-1105.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x
Results Washington. (2015). “Customer Satisfaction and Confidence: Employee
Engagement.” Accessed via https://data.results.wa.gov/en/stat/goals/i9wq-h48w/77st-
9yep/msqz-drxu
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday/Currency. Print.
Senge, P. M. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations are
Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Doubleday. Print.
Yang, S., & Guy, M. E. (2006). GENXERS VERSUS BOOMERS: Work Motivators and
Management Implications. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 267-284.
doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576290302
Zhang, J., Faerman, S. R., & Cresswell, A. M. (2006). “The effect of
organizational/technological factors and the nature of knowledge on knowledge sharing”.
In System Sciences. JAN, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 74a-74a). Accessed via
http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/hicss_2006_knowledge/hicss_2006_knowle
dge.pdf
