Search results

The purpose of this Real Impact Research Article is to empirically explore one of the most controversial and elusive concepts in knowledge management research – practical wisdom. It develops a 10-dimensional practical wisdom construct and tests it within the nomological network of counterproductive and productive knowledge behavior.

A survey instrument was created based on the extant literature. A model was developed and tested by means of Partial Least Squares with data obtained from 200 experienced employees recruited from CloudResearch Connect crowdsourcing platform.

Practical wisdom is a multidimensional construct that may be operationalized and measured like other well-established knowledge management concepts. Practical wisdom guides employee counterproductive and productive knowledge behavior: it suppresses knowledge sabotage and knowledge hiding (whether general, evasive, playing dumb, rationalized or bullying) and promotes knowledge sharing. While all proposed dimensions contribute to employee practical wisdom, particularly salient are subject matter expertise, moral purpose in decision-making, self-reflection in the workplace and external reflection in the workplace. Unexpectedly, practical wisdom facilitates knowledge hoarding instead of reducing it.

Managers should realize that possessing practical wisdom is not limited to a group of select, high-level executives. Organizations may administer the practical wisdom questionnaire presented in this study to their workers to identify those who score the lowest, and invest in employee training programs that focus on the development of those attributes pertaining to the practical wisdom dimensions.

The concept of practical wisdom is a controversial topic that has both detractors and supporters. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first large-scale empirical study of practical wisdom in the knowledge management domain.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.

Drawing on the microfoundations theory and rational choice sociology, this study aims to investigate knowledge-sharing microfoundations through knowledge sabotage behaviours in the workplace. As such, it aims to shed light on the adverse impact of knowledge sabotage on a knowledge-sharing climate.

As a quantitative deductive study, it is based on information collected from 329 employees of European companies by self-administered online surveys. Data validity and reliability has been assessed through a confirmatory factor analysis, and data analysis was carried out by using a covariance-based structural equation modelling technique.

The findings from the empirical investigation supported the baseline hypotheses of the multilevel conceptual model, which is the positive relationship between organizational trust and environmental knowledge sharing. Then, recurring to a microfoundational exploration, this study supports the mediating indirect effect of job satisfaction and knowledge sabotage in affecting knowledge sharing as a social outcome.

This study concurs to broaden knowledge-sharing awareness among scholars and practitioners, by focusing on knowledge sabotage as its most pernicious counterproductive behaviour. Furthermore, this research provides valuable guidance for the future development of research based on multilevel investigations.

This study builds on the need to explore the numerous factors that affect knowledge sharing in economic organizations, specifically focusing on knowledge sabotage. Adapting Coleman’s bathtub, the authors advance the first multilevel conceptual model used to unveil the knowledge-sharing microfoundations from the perspective of a counterproductive knowledge behaviour.