...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Academy of Management Journal >THE VERY SEPARATE WORLDS OF ACADEMIC AND PRACTITIONER PUBLICATIONS IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: REASONS FOR THE DIVIDE AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS FOR BRIDGING THE GAP
【24h】

THE VERY SEPARATE WORLDS OF ACADEMIC AND PRACTITIONER PUBLICATIONS IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: REASONS FOR THE DIVIDE AND CONCRETE SOLUTIONS FOR BRIDGING THE GAP

机译：人力资源管理中的学术和从业者出版物非常不同的世界：消除差距的具体和具体解决方案的原因

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In their lead article for this forum, Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (2007) take a stab at an important topic and raise some significant questions. The article is well written and for the most part, fairly presented. Their argument that "the gap between science and practice is so pervasive that some have despaired of its ever being narrowed" (Rynes et al., 2007: 987) is compelling. However, the evidence demonstrating the gap and the discussion of the reasons for it are not as compelling. Similarly, the discussion of the need for "evidence-based management" (EBM) is persuasive, but the lack of concrete solutions for achieving the use of EBM remains challenging. The authors are correct when citing Rousseau (2006) and Rousseau and McCarthy (2007) as saying that practitioners need to know evidence-based findings about workplace issues and that managerial decisions are better when they are informed by the "best available scientific evidence" (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007). It is agreed that practitioners need to know how to effectively use evidence to meet their ongoing and daily challenges. These challenges, however, are far more complex than just knowing the evidence itself or understanding multifaceted issues such as intelligence or personality. Organizations and workplace issues are multifaceted, and it would be inappropriate for a practitioner to consider issues such as intelligence, personality, or even goal setting in isolation.
机译：Rynes，Giluk和Brown（2007）在该论坛的主要文章中，对一个重要话题topic之以鼻，并提出了一些重大问题。这篇文章写得很好，并且在大多数情况下都相当公正。他们认为“科学与实践之间的鸿沟无处不在，以至于有些人对它的范围越来越缩小感到绝望”（Rynes等，2007：987）的观点令人信服。但是，证明存在这种差距的证据以及对造成这种差距的原因的讨论并不那么令人信服。同样，对“基于证据的管理”（EBM）需求的讨论很有说服力，但是缺乏实现使用EBM的具体解决方案仍然具有挑战性。作者在引用Rousseau（2006）以及Rousseau和McCarthy（2007）的话时是正确的，他们说从业者需要了解有关工作场所问题的循证发现，并且当他们从“最有效的科学依据”中获悉时，管理决策会更好。卢梭和麦卡锡，2007年）。达成共识的是，从业人员需要知道如何有效地利用证据来应对其持续和日常的挑战。但是，这些挑战远比仅了解证据本身或了解智力或人格等多方面问题要复杂得多。组织和工作场所问题是多方面的，从业人员不宜单独考虑诸如智力，个性甚至目标设定之类的问题。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Academy of Management Journal》 |2007年第5期|p.1013-1019|共7页
  • 作者

    DEBRA J. COHEN;

  • 作者单位

    Human Resource Management (SHRM) and is responsible for the Society's Knowledge Center and Research Department;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 一般工业技术;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号