The Korean Journal of Coaching Psychology (한국심리학회지 : 코칭)

Korean Association of Coaching Psychology (한국코칭심리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Intergenerational contact and work meaning: The mediating effect of knowledge sharing and the moderating effect of age

세대 간 소통과 일의 의미: 지식공유행동의 매개효과와 나이의 조절효과

  • Seoyeong Jeong (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University) ;
  • Young Woo Sohn (Department of Psychology, Yonsei University)
  • 정서영 (연세대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 손영우 (연세대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2023.12.08
  • Accepted : 2023.12.18
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the influence of intergenerational contact on work meaning through knowledge sharing. Additionally, based on the socioemotional selectivity theory, this study investigated whether age moderates the mediating path. We collected data from 588 full-time employees in South Korea, and analyzed the data using the latent moderated structural equation method. The results showed that knowledge sharing fully mediated the relationship between intergenerational contact and work meaning. Furthermore, age was found to moderate the relationship between intergenerational contact and work meaning via knowledge sharing. Particularly, the mediation effect was strengthened as age increased. This study holds a significant theoretical value by shedding light on the specific mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing. Moreover, the results suggest the potential for enhancing the impact of coaching programs by tailoring them to individual characteristics.

본 연구는 세대 간 소통이 지식공유행동을 매개하여 일의 의미에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 살펴보고자 하였다. 또한 사회 정서적 선택이론(socioemotional selectivity theory)을 기반으로, 지식공유행동이 일의 의미로 가는 경로, 세대 간 소통이 지식공유행동을 통해 일의 의미로 가는 매개경로가 나이에 의해 조절되는지 검증하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 국내 정규직 직장인 588명을 대상으로 설문을 실시하고, 잠재 조절 구조방정식(latent moderated structural equation) 방법을 활용하여 조절된 매개모형을 검증하였다. 그 결과, 지식공유행동은 세대 간 소통과 일의 의미 사이의 관계를 완전 매개하는 것으로 나타났다. 그리고 나이는 지식공유행동을 매개로 한 세대 간 소통과 일의 의미의 관계를 조절하는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로, 나이가 높을수록 매개 경로의 정적인 관계는 강화되는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 지식공유행동의 선행, 결과변인과 지식공유행동의 효과가 어떠한 상황에서 달라질 수 있는지 탐색하여 상세한 메커니즘을 밝혔다는 의의를 갖는다. 또한, 본 연구 결과를 활용하면 구성원 개인 특성을 고려한 코칭 프로그램 제공이 가능하기에, 코칭 효과를 극대화할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김수진 (2014). 한국판 일의 의미 척도(Working As Meaning Inventory; WAMI) 타당화. 이화여자대학교 일반대학원 석사학위논문.
  2. 김재윤, 한태영 (2019). 상사의 성과코칭이 지식공유행동에 미치는 영향-향상적 주인의식의 매개효과와 방어적 주인의식의 조절효과. 인적자원관리연구, 26(3), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.14396/jhrmr.2019.26.3.103 
  3. 대한상공회의소 (2020.04.08.). 직장 내 세대갈등과 기업문화 종합진단 보고서. http://www.korcham.net/nCham/Service/Economy/appl/KcciReportDetail.asp?SEQ_NO_C010=20120932732&CHAM_CD=B001 
  4. 삼성전자 (2023). 삼성전자 지속가능경영보고서: A journey towards a sustainable future. https://www.samsung.com/sec/sustainability/media/pdf/Samsung_Electronics_Sustainability_Report_2023_KOR.pdf 
  5. 이수란, 조지선, 정은경 (2021). 사회적 가치 코칭은 누구에게 유익한가? 사회적 가치 코칭이 일의 의미와 직무만족, 잡크래프팅에 미치는 영향: 조절초점의 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 코칭, 5(2), 83-100, https://doi.org/10.51457/kjcp.2021.12.5.2.83 
  6. 전준강 (2021.11.29.). 사람인, 기업 5곳 중 2곳 "세대갈등으로 퇴사하는 직원 있어". 인사이트. https://www.insight.co.kr/news/370312 
  7. 정서영, 박희웅, 손영우 (2023). 한국판 세대친화적 조직문화척도(K-WICS) 타당화 연구. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 29(4), 429-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.20406/kjcs.2023.11.29.4.429 
  8. 정순둘, 이아영, 박민선 (2022). 사기업 직장인들의 조직 내 세대갈등에 대한 탐색적 연구: 노동시장에서의 세대연대 모색. 노인복지연구, 77(4), 195-226. https://doi.org/10.21194/kjgsw.77.4.202212.195 
  9. 조진숙, 탁진국 (2018). 긍정심리기반 의사소통 향상 코칭프로그램이 청소년의 의사소통 능력과 자기존중, 배려.소통, 자기조절에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 코칭, 2(2), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.51457/kjcp.2018.12.2.2.45 
  10. 최두환, 한태영 (2022). 세대조화가 발언행동에 미치는 영향: 심리적 안전감 및 관점수용의 매개효과에 대한 다집단 분석. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 35(4), 701-725. 
  11. 현재호 (2019). 지식공유, 혁신행동, 직무만족 및 직무성과의 관계. 가천대학교 일반대학원 박사학위논문. 
  12. Ahmad, F., & Karim, M. (2019). Impacts of knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(3), 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-07-2018-0096 
  13. Allan, B. A. (2017). Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.011 
  14. Allan, B. A., Duffy, R. D., & Collisson, B. (2018). Task significance and performance: Meaningfulness as a mediator. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716680047 
  15. Ayturk, E., Cham, H., Jennings, P. A., & Brown, J. L. (2020). Latent variable interactions with ordered-categorical indicators: Comparisons of unconstrained product indicator and latent moderated structural equations approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(2), 262-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419865017 
  16. Bailey, C., Lips-Wiersma, M., Madden, A., Yeoman, R., Thompson, M., & Chalofsky, N. (2019). The five paradoxes of meaningful work: Introduction to the special issue 'meaningful work: Prospects for the 21st century'. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 481-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12422 
  17. Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2012). Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 63-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.002 
  18. Beazley, H., Boenisch, J., & Harden, D. (2002). Continuity management - Preserving corporate knowledge and productivity: When employees leave. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 
  19. Bhatti, S. H., Vorobyev, D., Zakariya, R., & Christofi, M. (2021). Social capital, knowledge sharing, work meaningfulness and creativity: Evidence from the Pakistani pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(2), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2020-0065 
  20. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 
  21. Bryant, F. B., & Satorra, A. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 372-398. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2012.687671 
  22. Burmeister, A., & Deller, J. (2016). Knowledge retention from older and retiring workers: What do we know, and where do we go from here?. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(2), 87-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw002 
  23. Burmeister, A., Fasbender, U., & Deller, J. (2018). Being perceived as a knowledge sender or knowledge receiver: A multistudy investigation of the effect of age on knowledge transfer. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 518-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12208 
  24. Burmeister, A., Wang, M., & Hirschi, A. (2020). Understanding the motivational benefits of knowledge transfer for older and younger workers in age-diverse coworker dyads: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(7), 748-759. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000466 
  25. Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312(5782), 1913-1915. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127488 
  26. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.165 
  27. Chen, I. Y., Chen, N. S., & Kinshuk. (2009). Examining the factors influencing participants' knowledge sharing behavior in virtual learning communities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 134-148. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.1.134 
  28. Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2021). Testing moderation in business and psychological studies with latent moderated structural equations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36, 1009-1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09717-0 
  29. Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2017). Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 746-769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115595869 
  30. Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159632 
  31. Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134 
  32. De Meulenaere, K., Boone, C., & Buyl, T. (2016). Unraveling the impact of workforce age diversity on labor productivity: The moderating role of firm size and job security. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2036 
  33. De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205285366 
  34. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606-620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217712052 
  35. Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. 
  36. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Statistical Associates Publishing. 
  37. Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). A phase model of intergenerational learning in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 193 - 216. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0185 
  38. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 
  39. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago press. 
  40. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 
  41. Johnston, B. M., & Glasford, D. E. (2018). Intergroup contact and helping: How quality contact and empathy shape outgroup helping. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(8), 1185-1201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217711770 
  42. Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 189 - 206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
  43. Kim, S. L., & Yun, S. (2015). The effect of coworker knowledge sharing on performance and its boundary conditions: An interactional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 575-582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037834 
  44. King, S. P., & Bryant, F. B. (2017). The workplace intergenerational climate scale (WICS): A self-report instrument measuring ageism in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(1), 124-151. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2118 
  45. Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65(4), 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296338 
  46. Kuo, T. H. (2013). How expected benefit and trust influence knowledge sharing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(4), 506-522. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311322766 
  47. Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17(1), 125 - 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.125 
  48. Le, P. C. L., Kim, J. I., & Kim, K. (2016). The growth of Korean companies and their contributions to the miracle of the Han river. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(5), 253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijmue.2016.11.5.23 
  49. Li, Y., Gong, Y., Burmeister, A., Wang, M., Alterman, V., Alonso, A., & Robinson, S. (2021). Leveraging age diversity for organizational performance: An intellectual capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(1), 71-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000497 
  50. Lin, C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 411-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9119-0 
  51. Lin, H. F. (2006). Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500083 
  52. Ma, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Understanding online knowledge sharing: An interpersonal relationship perspective. Computers & Education, 56(1), 210-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.004 
  53. Makela, K., Kalla, H. K., & Piekkari, R. (2007). Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations. International Business Review, 16(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.11.002 
  54. Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39(1), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414552301 
  55. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773 
  56. Park, J. G., Lee, H., & Lee, J. (2015). Applying social exchange theory in IT service relationships: exploring roles of exchange characteristics in knowledge sharing. Information Technology and Management, 16, 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0220-x 
  57. Rafique, G. M., & Mahmood, K. (2018). Relationship between knowledge sharing and job satisfaction: A systematic review. Information and Learning Science, 119(5/6), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2018-0019 
  58. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001 
  59. Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation modeling approach. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 721-745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621609 
  60. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160 
  61. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 
  62. Zhang, Y., Sun, J. M., Lin, C. H., & Ren, H. (2020). Linking core self-evaluation to creativity: The roles of knowledge sharing and work meaningfulness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35, 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9609-y