No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
. . when an academic field has as its charge the thoughtful preparation and guidance of practitioner professionals, and when an academic field deals in a domain that vitally affects societal well-being, then that academic field must enter the world of practical affairs. Without being co-opted, it must strive for influence and impact. That is our challenge. We should matter. We must matter (Hambrick, 1994: 70). The above quote is taken from an Academy of Management Review article reporting the content of the 1993 Academy of Management Presidential Address by Donald C. Hambrick, entitled if the Academy Actually Mattered?. Hambrick (1994) was not the first to call for an assessment of the relevance of academic thought to management practice (for example, see Thomas and Tymon, 1982; Oviatt and Miller, 1989; Daniels, 1991). In the five years since his speech to the Academy of Management, several of his suggestions have been implemented, such as more widespread dissemination of research findings of Academy members through a public relations agency, but whether they have achieved their intended purpose is uncertain. The current study is an exploratory effort to assess whether the work of the academic community has significantly influenced the practice of management in business organizations. Although the study is limited in its scope, we hope the results will provide some evidence of the degree to which the academic discipline of management shapes decisions of practicing managers. The study's aim is directed at answering three basic questions: What is the primary source of major management concepts for practicing managers? Are practicing managers familiar with key concepts and frameworks used in the academy (used in this study to convey the academic generation of instead of the academic environment)? How useful are several key academic concepts and frameworks to practicing managers in their decision-making processes? The remainder of this study provides a working definition of knowledge, develops a transfer model, describes our research methodology, provides results, offers a discussion and some tentative conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE? In current management literature, a distinction is made between two kinds of (Prusak, 1997). Information includes in the form of facts, axioms and symbols (Kogut and Zander, 1992), while know-how is defined as accumulated practical skill (von Hippel, 1988; Prusak, 1997). Machlup (1983) defines information as a flow of messages or meanings that might add to, restructure or change knowledge, and Nonaka suggests that is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder (1994: 15). Cognitive psychology differentiates between knowledge (facts or justified true belief) and knowledge (scripts or how-to knowledge) (Paris et al., 1983). Similarly, in educational medicine, Bordage and Lemieux (1991) indicate that physicians use syntactic theory to capture the rules of inclusion of symptoms and signs (similar to declarative knowledge) and semantic theory to capture the meaning assigned to the symptom s and signs (similar to procedural knowledge). Nonaka (1994) suggests that the semantic aspects of are most important when considering building a theory of creation. In summary, the above explication of the concept suggests two distinctive characteristics of knowledge: a procedural element and a declarative element Assessing practitioners' familiarity with concepts and frameworks of management addresses the declarative element of knowledge, and evaluating the usefulness of these concepts and frameworks to practitioners considers the procedural element of knowledge. In the next section we develop a model to evaluate the three questions associated with this study: What is the primary source of major management concepts for practicing managers? …
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.