Untangling knowledge fields and knowledge dynamics within the decision-making process

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the influences of different types of knowledge and their inherent dynamics on the effectiveness of the decision-making (DM) process. Knowledge dynamics (KD) is envisioned through the lens of the knowledge fields theory while effective DM process is objectivised via organisational appreciation and reward, higher business performance, sustainable partnerships and managerial satisfaction with previous achievements.

Design/methodology/approach

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted with 275 middle managers from companies operating in the business consulting field. The conceptual and structural model was tested using the partial least squares structural equation modelling technique.

Findings

The study advances novel insights into the significant positive influences of various knowledge fields on KD on the DM process within real-life business environments. Even though rational knowledge exerts a noteworthy effect on DM, its influence is exceeded by the KD, which proves that integrating emotional and spiritual knowledge in the decisional equation may become a pivotal input to making good managerial decisions regardless of the level of regulation and standardisation in the field.

Research limitations/implications

The research relied on threefold knowledge fields as predictors for the DM process, thus providing a starting point for the development of more complex models.

Originality/value

The study emerges as a groundbreaking approach via the integration and application of the knowledge fields theory within a more comprehensive and empirical outlook on the DM process. Simultaneously, it places DM beyond the unidimensional outcomes of rationality and intuition by urging its intricate and interactional nature.

Citation

Bratianu, C., Vătămănescu, E.-M., Anagnoste, S. and Dominici, G. (2021), "Untangling knowledge fields and knowledge dynamics within the decision-making process", Management Decision, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 306-323. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2019-0559