Text
A Sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science
As Rynes, Giluk, and Brown make all too clear in their "separate worlds" study, there is a gap between research and practice. Factoring in the other commentaries accompanying that study, readers must wonder whether "gap" is a tad understated. Since there is almost no evidence-informed management or management-informed evidence, more accurate terms are probably "chasm" and "fault line." Chasm captures the vast distance in perspectives, interests, incentives, and priorities between organizational scientists and practitioners. Practitioners want their questions answered (now). The best evidence does not necessarily provide answers, and academics prefer to ask their own questions (in their own time). Fault line conveys the divisive tensions often moving proactive and science in opposing directions. Consider, for instance, that mergers and acquisitions may be good for Wall Street and CEOs, but research indicates that they are not so great for many companies. Clearly, there's a general absence of healthy connections between organizational science and practice.Printed journal
Ketersediaan
| Call Number | Location | Available |
|---|---|---|
| PSB lt.dasar - Pascasarjana | 1 |
| Penerbit | : Academy of Management |
|---|---|
| Edisi | - |
| Subjek | Research Management styles Evidence Collaboration |
| ISBN/ISSN | 14273 |
| Klasifikasi | - |
| Deskripsi Fisik | - |
| Info Detail Spesifik | - |
| Other Version/Related | Tidak tersedia versi lain |
| Lampiran Berkas | Tidak Ada Data |