化阻力为助力：企业数字化转型中反向师徒制的有效性及作用机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2025.1120

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在数字技术迅猛发展的时代背景下, 企业开展数字化转型已经是大势所趋。然而, 很多企业的数字化转型之路都面临严重的内部人员阻力问题, 导致转型很容易遭受失败。对于如何化解这些人员阻力, 目前的研究仍十分有限。本研究聚焦这一现实痛点问题, 创新性地提出反向师徒制作为潜在的“解题之匙”, 着力探讨反向师徒制在化解企业数字化转型人员阻力方面的有效性及作用机制。首先, 本研究扎根数字化转型这一时代情境拓展反向师徒制的概念内涵, 并开发相应的测量工具。在此基础上, 从差异化需求满足的视角出发, 构建反向师徒制通过满足不同主体(年长徒弟、年轻导师和组织人力资源整体)在数字化转型中的核心需求, 从而帮助其良好适应并积极促进数字化转型的理论模型。由此, 本研究不仅推动了企业数字化转型在微观层面的人员管理研究向纵深突破, 也深化了学界对反向师徒制作用效果的规律性认识, 为企业顺利实施数字化转型以及有效运用反向师徒制实践提供了启发和借鉴。

关键词: 反向师徒制, 数字化转型, 需求满足, 人员阻力

Abstract:

As digitalization accelerates, businesses are increasingly adopting digital transformation as a strategic imperative. However, despite its immense potential, many organizations face internal resistance, which hinders the success of digital transformation initiatives. This research proposal introduces reverse mentoring as a promising solution and explores its effectiveness and mechanisms. Unlike traditional mentoring, where senior employees guide junior colleagues, reverse mentoring positions younger employees as mentors, offering technological insights and fresh perspectives to senior counterparts.

The research develops a theoretical framework grounded in the differentiated needs fulfillment perspective, examining how reverse mentoring addresses the distinct needs of senior mentees, young mentors, and the organization. This framework highlights the interconnectedness of these needs and demonstrates how fulfilling them contributes to successful transformation. To begin with, the research refines the definition of reverse mentoring within the digital transformation context and identifies three core functional dimensions: career support, psychological support, and role modeling. These dimensions are instrumental in ensuring that all groups benefit from the mentoring relationship, promoting knowledge sharing and fostering organizational cohesion.

Furthermore, the research explores how reverse mentoring influences senior employees’ adaptation to digital transformation. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), it argues that reverse mentoring enhances senior employees’ digital literacy, which improves their perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of new digital technologies. This leads to more supportive attitudes and behaviors towards digital transformation. The research also explores the moderating role of senior mentees’ downward learning mindset, offering additional insights into individual differences in the adaptation process.

Beyond its impact on senior employees, this research also investigates how reverse mentoring affects young mentors. Based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), it suggests that reverse mentoring, by involving young mentors in the transformation process, satisfies their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This, in turn, strengthens their commitment to digital transformation, ultimately fostering greater responsibility and initiative. The research further discusses how new-generation work values—such as a preference for equality and collaboration—moderate this process.

At the organizational level, the research applies Sensemaking Theory to explore how reverse mentoring contributes to organizational resilience in digital transformation. It emphasizes that reverse mentoring strengthens cross-generational communication, aligns organizational goals, and promotes a shared understanding, ultimately enhancing strategic consensus and improving the organization’s ability to navigate digital transformation challenges. Additionally, the research examines how the intensity of management practices moderates this relationship, further enhancing organizational adaptability and resilience to change.

This research makes several significant theoretical contributions. First, it advances the understanding of reverse mentoring by refining its definition and identifying its structure within the context of digital transformation, thereby enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of this management practices. Second, the research integrates multiple theoretical perspectives—TAM, SDT, and Sensemaking Theory—into a cohesive framework that explains how reverse mentoring addresses both individual and organizational challenges during digital transformation. The framework contributes to the theoretical literature on reverse mentoring, digital transformation, and knowledge management, offering new insights into the role of intergenerational mentoring in modern organizational contexts.

From a practical perspective, this research provides valuable insights for organizations aiming to implement reverse mentoring programs. It underscores the importance of aligning mentoring practices with the specific needs of different stakeholders, thereby fostering a more inclusive and change adaptable organizational culture. By strategically leveraging the strengths of both younger and older employees, reverse mentoring enhances both individual and organizational adaptability, ultimately contributing to a more successful digital transformation process.

In conclusion, this research systematically examines the role of reverse mentoring in facilitating digital transformation by addressing the differentiated needs of employees at different levels. By fulfilling these needs, reverse mentoring serves as a powerful tool to break down resistance during the digital transformation process. This research enriches theoretical understanding and offers practical guidance for organizations seeking to leverage reverse mentoring as a strategic tool for successful digital transformation.

Key words: reverse mentoring, digital transformation, needs fulfillment, personnel barriers

中图分类号:

B849: C93

姜平, 宗宽道, 赵琛徽, 龙立荣. (2025). 化阻力为助力：企业数字化转型中反向师徒制的有效性及作用机制. 心理科学进展 , 33(7), 1120-1139.

JIANG Ping, ZONG Kuandao, ZHAO Chenhui, LONG Lirong. (2025). Turning resistance into assistance: A research proposal on the effectiveness and mechanism of the reverse mentoring practice in the digital transformation context. Advances in Psychological Science, 33(7), 1120-1139.

图/表 4

图1 总体理论模型

图2 反向师徒制影响年长徒弟数字化转型适应性的理论模型

图3 反向师徒制影响年轻导师数字化转型适应性的理论模型

图4 反向师徒制影响组织数字化转型韧性的理论模型

参考文献 103

[1]	邓奔驰, 黄思行, 黄亮. (2018). 企业师徒制中负面指导经历:现状与展望. 中国人力资源开发, 35(8), 50-63.
[2]	高中华, 徐燕. (2023). 智能制造师徒关系理论构建及对团队双元创新的驱动机制. 心理科学进展, 31(8), 1411-1428. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01411
[3]	韩翼, 杨百寅. (2012). 师徒关系开启徒弟职业成功之门: 政治技能视角. 管理世界, 28(6), 124-132.
[4]	韩翼, 周洁, 孙习习, 杨百寅. (2013). 师徒关系结构、作用机制及其效应. 管理评论, 25(7), 54-66.
[5]	侯烜方, 李燕萍, 涂乙冬. (2014). 新生代工作价值观结构、测量及对绩效影响. 心理学报, 46(6), 823-840.
[6]	贾建锋, 陈宬, 焦玉鑫. (2021). 如何唤醒“装睡的员工”:人力资源管理强度对知识共享的影响机制研究. 东北大学学报(社会科学版), 23(4), 26-33. doi: 10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2021.04.004
[7]	贾建锋, 周舜怡, 唐贵瑶. (2017). 人力资源管理强度的研究回顾及在中国情境下的理论框架建构. 中国人力资源开发, 34(10), 6-15.
[8]	李进生, 曾颢, 赵曙明. (2021). 师徒制对徒弟创新绩效的影响机制研究: 心理可得性和主动性人格的作用. 商业经济与管理, 41(3), 19-29.
[9]	李燕萍, 侯烜方. (2012). 新生代员工工作价值观结构及其对工作行为的影响机理. 经济管理, 34(5), 77-86.
[10]	刘贝妮, 张志学. (2023). 团队何以愈挫弥坚?领导正念对团队韧性形成的影响. 心理科学进展, 31(7), 1146-1159. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01146
[11]	吕鸿江, 张秋萍, 彭丽娟. (2020). 领导被下属“逆向指导”的权变机制——信息深加工和信任地位的作用. 中国工业经济, (11), 174-192.
[12]	戚聿东, 杜博, 温馨. (2021). 国有企业数字化战略变革: 使命嵌入与模式选择——基于3家中央企业数字化典型实践的案例研究. 管理世界, 37(11), 137-158.
[13]	史燕伟, 谢菊兰, 王雅妮, 张南. (2023). 数字化工作重塑及其对工作绩效的促进作用: 基于人-任务-技术匹配视角. 心理科学进展, 31(7), 1133-1145. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01133
[14]	魏翔宇, 于广涛. (2021). 企业导师指导如何激发徒弟创新——基于认知和情感的双路径机制研究. 经济管理, 43(2), 123-138.
[15]	谢小云, 左玉涵, 胡琼晶. (2021). 数字化时代的人力资源管理: 基于人与技术交互的视角. 管理世界, 37(1), 200-216+13.
[16]	杨陈, 杨付, 景熠, 唐明凤. (2018). 谦卑型领导如何改善员工绩效: 心理需求满足的中介作用和工作单位结构的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 21(2), 121-134.
[17]	张李义, 张然. (2015). 技术接受模型(TAM)关键变量前因分析. 信息资源管理学报, 5(2), 11-20. doi: 10.13365/j.jirm.2015.02.011
[18]	张志学, 赵曙明, 施俊琦, 秦昕, 贺伟, 赵新元, 王宇, 吴刚. (2021). 数字经济下组织管理研究的关键科学问题——第254期“双清论坛”学术综述. 中国科学基金, 35(5), 774-781.
[19]	周琦玮, 李倩, 梁爽. (2024). 员工对企业数字化转型的反应研究: 基于压力的理论视角. 心理科学进展, 32(4), 594-615. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00594
[20]	Abhari, K., Ostroff, C., Barcellos, B., & Williams, D. (2021, January 5-8). Co-Governance in digital transformation Initiatives: The roles of digital culture and employee experience. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hilton Waikoloa Village, HI, USA.
[21]	Agrawal, S. (2017). Personality traits and organisational commitment of Gen X and Gen Y employees. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour, 6(1-2), 10-17.
[22]	Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-109.
[23]	Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well‐being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.
[24]	Bartol, K. M., Liu, W., Zeng, X., & Wu, K. (2009). Social exchange and knowledge sharing among knowledge workers: The moderating role of perceived job security. Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 223-240.
[25]	Benitez, J., Arenas, A., Castillo, A., & Esteves, J. (2022). Impact of digital leadership capability on innovation performance: The role of platform digitization capability. Information & Management, 59(2), 103590.
[26]	Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM- firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203-221.
[27]	Burhan, Q., Malik, M. F., Siddiqui, M. A., & Burhan, S. (2024). Breaking barriers: Exploring the impact of reverse mentoring on change adaptation behavior through sequential mediation of cognitive flexibility and resilience. Current Psychology, 43(33), 27033-27044.
[28]	Burkus, D. (2010). Developing the next generation of leaders: How to engage millennials in the workplace. Leadership Advance Online. Retrieved from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/lao/issue_19/Burkus_leading_next_generation.pdf
[29]	Burmeister, A., Deller, J., Osland, J., Szkudlarek, B., Oddou, G., & Blakeney, R. (2015). The micro-processes during repatriate knowledge transfer: The repatriates’ perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(4), 735-755.
[30]	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.
[31]	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. doi: 10.1037/apl0000466 pmid: 31697117
[32]	Cabrera, Á., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245-264.
[33]	Canning, R. (2011). Older workers in the hospitality industry: Valuing experience and informal learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 30(5), 667-679.
[34]	Carmeli, A., Friedman, Y., Tishler, A. (2013). Cultivating a resilient top management team: The importance of relational connections and strategic decision comprehensiveness. Safety Science, 51(1), 148-159.
[35]	Cetindamar, D., Abedin, B., Shirahada, K. (2021). The role of employees in digital transformation: A preliminary study on how employees’ digital literacy impacts use of digital technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 7837-7848.
[36]	Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 55-76.
[37]	Cohen, S. E. (2003, November-December). This isn’t your father’s mentoring relationship: Mentoring across all generations has become an integral part of corporate culture. AARP Magazine. Retrieved from http://careersystemsintl.org/Word%20Files/AARP%20Magazine%20This%20Isn't%20Your%20Father's%20Mentoring%20Relationship.doc
[38]	Conway, N., Clinton, M., Sturges, J., & Budjanovcanin, A. (2015). Using self‐determination theory to understand the relationship between calling enactment and daily well‐being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(8), 1114-1131.
[39]	Cotugna, N., & Vickery, C. E. (1998). Reverse mentoring: A twist to teaching technology. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 98(10), 1166-1168. pmid: 9787725
[40]	Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
[41]	Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self- determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580-590.
[42]	Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19-43.
[43]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
[44]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182-185.
[45]	Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930-942.
[46]	Deng, H., Guan, Y., Zhou, X., Li, Y., Cai, D., Li, N., & Liu, B. (2024). The “double-edged sword” effects of career support mentoring on newcomer turnover: How and when it helps or hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(7), 1094-1114.
[47]	Elkaseh, A., Wong, K., & Fung, C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192-199.
[48]	Evans, R. D. (2017). Digital native or digital immigrant? Using intraorganizational resources to develop technological competence among older employees. Development and Learning in Organizations, 31(2), 8-9.
[49]	Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29.
[50]	Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
[51]	Garg, N., Murphy, W., & Singh, P. (2021). Reverse mentoring, job crafting and work-outcomes: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International, 26(2), 290-308.
[52]	Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Human resource practices as communications and the psychological contract. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 447-462.
[53]	Harvey, M., McIntyre, N., Thompson Heames, J., & Moeller, M. (2009). Mentoring global female managers in the global marketplace: Traditional, reverse, and reciprocal mentoring. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(6), 1344-1361.
[54]	Hauff, S., Alewell, D., & Katrin Hansen, N. (2017). HRM system strength and HRM target achievement—Toward a broader understanding of HRM processes. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 715-729.
[55]	Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Caldwell, S. D. (2007). Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 942-951. pmid: 17638456
[56]	Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7-8), 71-76. pmid: 19630257
[57]	Hunt, D. M., & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool. Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 475-485.
[58]	Imran, F., Shahzad, K., Butt, A., & Kantola, J. (2021). Digital transformation of industrial organizations: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Change Management, 21(4), 451-479.
[59]	Ivey, G. W., & Dupré, K. E. (2022). Workplace mentorship: A critical review. Journal of Career Development, 49(3), 714-729.
[60]	Jordan, J., & Sorell, M. (2019, October 3). Why reverse mentoring works and how to do it right. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-reverse-mentoring-works-and-how-to-do-it-right
[61]	Kamal, S. A., Shafiq, M., & Kakria, P. (2020). Investigating acceptance of telemedicine services through an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Technology in Society, 60(1), 101212.
[62]	Kennedy, D. M., Landon, L. B., & Maynard, M. T. (2016). Extending the conversation: Employee resilience at the team level. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 466-475.
[63]	Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Scott Foresman.
[64]	Kwan, M. M., & Cheung, P.-K. (2006). The knowledge transfer process: From field studies to technology development. Journal of Database Management, 17(1), 16-32.
[65]	Leh, A. S. C. (2005). Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development: A case study in technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 25-41.
[66]	Lester, P. B., Hannah, S. T., Harms, P. D., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2011). Mentoring impact on leader efficacy development: A field experiment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 409-429.
[67]	Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.
[68]	Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57-125.
[69]	Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). Mentoring millennials. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 67-72.
[70]	Milyavskaya, M., Nadolny, D., & Koestner, R. (2014). Where do self-concordant goals come from? The role of domain-specific psychological need satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 700-711. pmid: 24625657
[71]	Mohammadyari, S., & Singh, H. (2015). Understanding the effect of e-learning on individual performance: The role of digital literacy. Computers & Education, 82(3), 11-25.
[72]	Murphy, W. M. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management, 51(4), 549-573.
[73]	Nambisan, S. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(6), 1029-1055.
[74]	Neumeyer, X., & Liu, M. (2021). Managerial competencies and development in the digital age. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 49(3), 49-55.
[75]	Neumeyer, X., Santos, S. C., & Morris, M. H. (2021). Overcoming barriers to technology adoption when fostering entrepreneurship among the poor: The role of technology and digital literacy. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(6), 1605-1618.
[76]	Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41(3), 457-479.
[77]	Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2005). Construct equivalence across groups: An unexplored issue in mentoring research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(2), 323-335.
[78]	Pfrombeck, J., Burmeister, A., & Grote, G. (2024). Older workers’ knowledge seeking from younger coworkers: Disentangling countervailing pathways to successful aging at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(1), 1-20.
[79]	Rousseau, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1994). Human resource practices: Administrative contract makers. Human Resource Management, 33(3), 385-401.
[80]	Ryan, R., M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 654-678). The Guilford Press.
[81]	Ryan, R., M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized over development? A self-determination theory perspective on basic psychological needs across the life span. In S. Qualls & R. Abeles (Eds.), Dialogues on psychology and aging (pp. 145-172). American Psychological Association.
[82]	Saes, E. V., Godinho Filho, M., Thürer, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Carraro, N. C., & Oprime, P. C. (2022). Manufacturing strategy in small firms: Unveiling the drivers of strategic consensus. Production Planning & Control, 33(1), 37-55.
[83]	Scandura, T. A. (1992). Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 169-174.
[84]	Scuotto, V., Nicotra, M., Del Giudice, M., Krueger, N., & Gregori, G. L. (2021). A microfoundational perspective on SMEs’ growth in the digital transformation era. Journal of Business Research, 129(8), 382-392.
[85]	Solomon, M. (2001). Coaching the boss. Computerworld, 35(5), 42.
[86]	Tabrizi, B., Lam, E., Girard, K., & Irvin, V. (2019, March 13). Digital transformation is not about technology. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/03/digital-transformation-is-not-about-technology
[87]	Tang, N., Wang, Y., & Zhang, K. (2017). Values of Chinese generation cohorts: Do they matter in the workplace? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 143(6), 8-22.
[88]	Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. Free Press.
[89]	Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142.
[90]	Van den, Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195-1229.
[91]	Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
[92]	Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
[93]	Vuchkovski, D., Zalaznik, M., Mitręga, M., & Pfajfar, G. (2023). A look at the future of work: The digital transformation of teams from conventional to virtual. Journal of Business Research, 163(10), 113912.
[94]	Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, E. T., & Hezlett, S. A. (2003). Mentoring research: A review and dynamic process model. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 39-124.
[95]	Weeks, K. P., & Schaffert, C. (2019). Generational differences in definitions of meaningful work: A mixed methods study. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1045-1061.
[96]	Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 628-652.
[97]	Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.
[98]	Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
[99]	Welbourne, T. M., & Paterson, T. A. (2017). Advancing a richer view of identity at work: The role‐based identity scale. Personnel Psychology, 70(2), 315-356.
[100]	Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2006). Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12(2), 150-161.
[101]	Yao, Q., Tang, H., Liu, Y., & Boadu, F. (2024). The penetration effect of digital leadership on digital transformation: The role of digital strategy consensus and diversity types. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 37(3), 903-927.
[102]	Zahoor, N., Zopiatis, A., Adomako, S., & Lamprinakos, G. (2023). The micro-foundations of digitally transforming SMEs: How digital literacy and technology interact with managerial attributes. Journal of Business Research, 159(6), 113755.
[103]	Zhang, T., Wang, D. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2023). Learning down to train up: Mentors are more effective when they value insights from below. Academy of Management Journal, 66(2), 604-637.