Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nuevo Articulo - Decision Basada en Evidencia 8
Nuevo Articulo - Decision Basada en Evidencia 8
net/publication/341790439
CITATIONS READS
8 166
3 authors:
Chris J Jackson
UNSW Sydney
147 PUBLICATIONS 4,943 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Christian Criado-Pérez on 02 June 2020.
Capacity Literature
https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896220919784
1
Abstract
Evidence-based management (EBM) is a framework well-suited to improving decision-making
amid the deluge of available information. However, little is known about the enablers of EBM,
(AC) literature, we identify novel multi-level factors that are likely to enable EBM
meta-analyses to determine the relationship between these antecedents and AC. Findings
include prior related knowledge, motivation for learning and employee empowerment. We
EBM, advancing a research agenda on EBM and providing recommendations for practitioners.
Keywords
enablers
2
1. Introduction
information that managers can collect and rely on to inform decision-making (Knippenberg et
al., 2015). In parallel, rapidly growing fields such as artificial intelligence and machine
learning are increasingly assisting in complex pattern recognition, facilitating a trend towards
more informed decision-making across a wide range of applications (Jarrahi, 2018; Jordan
and Mitchell, 2015; O’Leary, 2013). However, information technologies have also resulted in
the need to filter a huge amount of irrelevant or misleading information. These changes
present organisations with an opportunity to capture additional value and gain competitive
advantage, provided they can cope with unprecedented information processing demands
(Cheatham et al., 2019; Gupta and George, 2016; World Economic Forum, 2018). Making
informed and accurate decisions will require formulating the right questions to collect and
To improve decision-making and increase the chances of desired outcomes amid such
whereby managers engage in conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available
evidence to make decisions (Barends and Rousseau, 2018; Briner et al., 2009). Since its
inception, the literature on EBM has mostly expanded through conceptual papers, advocacy
articles, and teaching related studies to help bridge the research-practice divide (Rynes and
Bartunek, 2017). Building on this important work, there is little empirical research shedding
light on the conditions that enable EBM. Research from the fields of medicine and
psychology provide initial insights into individual level factors that may foster EBM (e.g.,
Michie et al., 2005; Smith and Lilienfeld, 2015), yet organisational level enablers have
mostly been overlooked. Recent research in management has started to demonstrate that, in
3
addition to these individual factors, organisational factors such as culture also impact EBM,
This paper aims to highlight insights from organisational research regarding potential
enablers of EBM and propose a future research agenda for this important framework. To do
so, we will explore the construct of absorptive capacity (AC) which is one of the most
within their environment (Camisón and Forés, 2010). As we will demonstrate, AC presents
similarities with many key elements of EBM, and thus we identify ways in which knowledge
about enablers of AC could be applied to enhance EBM research and practice. Specifically,
correlation with AC via a meta-analysis to extract evidence-based themes that EBM research
can build upon. In this way, we provide a research agenda for future research on EBM and
identify factors that can help organisations make the most effective use of evidence in the
twenty-first century.
The growing volume of information made available through computer technology and the
internet has revolutionised the nature of management decision-making across a wide range of
industries. To illustrate this change, consider two examples from sectors that have
and the built environment. A supply chain manager is responsible for orchestrating the timely
acquisition and movement of goods to facilitate an efficient production and delivery of end
ago managers in this position would struggle to gather this important data. Fast forward to
today and the tables have turned. Enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and radio
4
frequency identification have enabled supply chain managers to monitor and forecast the
demand for goods, movement of stocks, and predict the future workload to size their
artificial intelligence, and the use of big data analytics are providing managers with the
opportunity to benefit from unprecedented volumes of information, giving rise to a new era
of industrial development (Lu, 2017; Roblek et al., 2016; Rossit et al., 2019). Yet the
vastness of available data can often be overwhelming and detrimental (Schwartz and Ward,
2004; Whelan and Teigland, 2013). Thus, selecting what information to focus on, and how to
The second example is a manager in the built environment sector. Until recently,
building designers and facility managers had little information on how buildings were used.
operational building was an arduous and unusual task (Duffy, 2012). Today the use of
sensors and building management systems can give detailed real time occupancy information
(e.g., energy use, indoor environment quality, usage of rooms and desks), providing an
(Duarte et al., 2013). If used wisely, this newly available data can help narrow the gap
between the predicted and actual performance of buildings, as well as shed light on the
complex relationship between design features and occupants’ well-being and satisfaction
(Göçer et al., 2015). Built environment managers who capitalise on this opportunity can
The impact of the growing volume of information goes beyond supply chain management
or the built environment and impacts most management roles across the organisation (e.g.,
HR, strategy, sales, finance). As a result, most managers will no longer struggle to collect
5
information, but instead will have so much within reach that being selective and critical in
making sense of the available evidence will be increasingly important. The vast amount of
information available may look homogeneous to the untrained eye in terms of validity and
applicability. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Management fads, fake news,
and unfounded advice abound and intermingle with rigorous and trustworthy evidence. The
validity of the information used to make strategic decisions is likely to influence whether the
crossroad, creating uncertainty that motivates them to rely on intuitive judgements instead
(Sadler-Smith and Shefy, 2004). Hence, to benefit from the acquisition and exploitation of
the available knowledge, managers must be able to discern weak from strong evidence to
practitioners navigate through the available information and make decisions based on the best
available evidence. Barends and colleagues (Barends et al., 2014; Barends and Rousseau,
2018) define EBM as the judicious and conscientious use of evidence from multiple sources.
6
The purpose of the framework is to provide managers with a method to question their
assumptions with evidence, apply this evidence to the managers’ specific context, and learn
from the implemented solutions (Barends et al., 2014; Briner et al., 2009). Despite the
growing body of research on EBM, recent reviews of the EBM literature highlight a shortage
of empirical work on the process of how to implement EBM (Rousseau and Gunia, 2016;
Rynes and Bartunek, 2017). That is, little is known about what facilitates EBM
implementation. Rousseau and Gunia (2016) started to address this gap by reviewing related
literature on enablers of evidence-based practice in the fields of medicine and allied health.
independently update their knowledge through the systematic use of scientific evidence
(Barends and Briner, 2014). EBM evolved from this literature, thus relying on the best
available evidence to make decisions, although it differs with regards to the context and
nature of those decisions. Rousseau and Gunia (2016) drew on the ability-motivation-
the motivation to do so, and the required support (opportunity) to overcome its barriers. As
expected for a literature in its formative stages, there was a call for more empirical research,
and of particular note and relevance for this paper, a deeper understanding of organisational
Building on Rousseau and Gunia’s (2016) review paper, we draw on a different literature
to identify multi-level factors that may facilitate EBM adoption. We ventured beyond the
learning (e.g., Argote and Miron-Spektor, 2011), information seeking behaviour (e.g., Mai,
2016), behavioural decision research (e.g., Moore and Flynn, 2008) and human factors
7
research (e.g., Russ et al., 2012). Heeding calls for EBM to address organisational-level
factors, we focus on AC because it examines the process through which firms identify and
utilize knowledge in a way that is beneficial to organisational outcomes (Song et al., 2018).
Next, we unpack the similarities and differences between EBM and AC to highlight why it is
Absorptive capacity (AC) refers to the ability to identify, accumulate, process and use
valuable new knowledge from external sources (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; van Doorn et al.,
2017; Zahra et al., 2009). Terminology for AC dimensions or steps differ (Lane et al., 2006;
Lewin et al., 2011; Todorova and Durisin, 2007; Zahra and George, 2002), and whilst there
has been some debate over the different dimensions within AC, scholars most typically use
the construct of AC and pay less attention to the process or dimensions (Song et al., 2018;
Volberda et al., 2010). To address these issues, Song et al. (2018) argued there are three
search for and acquire valuable external knowledge; absorptive knowledge base, to
understand, adapt, and exploit the acquired knowledge; and absorptive process to facilitate
The constructs of AC and EBM are associated with different streams of research and to
our knowledge have never been juxtaposed or combined. However, a close look at the
building blocks of both constructs reveals many similarities. As illustrated in Table 1, steps
2-5 of the EBM framework parallel dimensions of AC. Specifically, there are four
commonalities. First, both EBM and AC involve the acquisition and use of valuable
knowledge with the aim of pursuing beneficial organisational outcomes. Second, EBM
considers appraising quality of evidence collected (Barends and Rousseau, 2018), which is
8
consequent processing to assess relevance and utility (Lane et al., 2006; Song et al., 2018).
Third, to synthesise and contextualise new knowledge both EBM and AC ‘aggregate’ the
available evidence (Barends and Rousseau, 2018) or ‘adapt’ the acquired knowledge by
combining it with the accumulated knowledge held by the firm (Song et al., 2018). Fourth
and lastly, both EBM and AC describe the application or exploitation of the acquired
As seen in Table 1, the similarities between these two constructs are such that EBM
appears to comprise all of the steps involved in AC, as well as two additional components,
starting point preceding the search for evidence. This stems from the framework’s
decisions to increase the likelihood of the desired outcomes. On the other hand, AC focuses
on the capability of a firm to learn from its external environment and exploit that novel
EBM focuses on the collection of evidence from multiple internal and external sources and
consequent aggregation (Barends et al., 2014). AC implies a similar process whilst focussing
on acquiring new external knowledge and subsequently adapting it when combined with prior
(i.e., internal) knowledge (Song et al., 2018; Zahra and George, 2002). In step 6, EBM
generate and disseminate additional knowledge. Although Song et al. (2018) describe the
refer to the collection and dissemination in terms of a feedback loop. Overall, our comparison
9
of EBM and AC underscores some nuances regarding terminology and scope, yet also
In summary, AC provides the organisational nuances which, we argue, can enrich the
EBM literature. Whereas EBM is generally described as an individual level construct adopted
by managers, AC is a multilevel construct that has mostly been measured at a firm level to
focus on organisational issues (Volberda et al., 2010). This difference is beginning to fade as
researchers who study AC and its antecedents are more recently also focusing on the
individual or team levels (e.g., Lowik et al., 2017; Ojo and Raman, 2016). We see this as an
opportunity to broaden the current horizons of the EBM literature. As empirical research on
the enablers of EBM is scarce, the AC literature provides a list of empirically supported
enablers that could provide clues to the factors that enable EBM. From this perspective, we
draw upon the construct of AC and empirical research on its multi-level antecedents to
Volberda et al (2010) reviewed the theoretical and empirical studies of AC to identify the
conceptual gaps within the literature. The authors found that organisational and individual
level antecedents have been mostly neglected and called for more empirical research on
‘macro-antecedents’ and ‘micro-antecedents’ of AC. Since then, more scholars have studied
predictors of AC, but we have not found a systematic review of these findings. For example,
Song et al.’s (2018) meta-analysis synthesizes the empirical findings yet only covers the
outcomes of AC. Therefore, to take stock of the empirical evidence regarding the antecedents
of AC we performed a literature review and drew on empirical studies from the last 10 years
that examined the antecedents of AC in a management context. We searched for articles that
included the term “absorptive capacity” in the abstract and short-listed those including
predictors of AC. We used the ProQuest and EBSCO databases to search for papers that met
10
our criteria across management journals. This yielded a total of 95 articles which were
scanned for relevance and coded for the following criteria: (1) How AC was operationalised;
(2) empirically supported antecedents of AC; (3) whether these antecedents were individual,
organisational or about the environment external to the organisation; and (4) whether data
collected were cross sectional or lagged. Out of the 95 articles initially identified, 43 tested
for antecedents of AC. Table 2 provides a high-level summary of the included literature.
antecedents of AC paid most attention to constructs at the organisational level. In fact, 70%
considered and measured AC at the organisational level, and 65% of the studies focused on
organisational level antecedents. In contrast, less attention has been paid to antecedents at the
individual level (23% of studies), team level (9%) and from the external environment (5%).
What was reassuring from a construct validity perspective for the purpose of drawing
parallels between AC and EBM, is that most articles operationalised AC through self-
reported scales that built on seminal conceptual papers (e.g., Cohen and Levinthal, 1990;
Todorova and Durisin, 2007; Zahra and George, 2002) to measure the ability to absorb,
transform, and exploit valuable external knowledge. Only 9% of the included studies relied
within a firm (Schubert et al., 2018), or through objective measures such as R&D expenditure
and number of employees with bachelor degrees (Kostopoulos et al., 2011). Given most
aspects of EBM - the collection, evaluation, and use of valuable knowledge - this enables us
11
Our review identified over 70 antecedents of AC, yet this broad list of predictors did
not consider the supporting evidence for each antecedent, nor does it consider predictive
validity. Further, many of the identified antecedents were overlapping (e.g., employee
collaboration and teamwork); some of these antecedents were supported by several studies,
while others were only supported by anecdotal evidence. Rather than provide an exhaustive
list of predictors without evaluating their relevance, we aimed to identify the most viable
this, we condensed the list of potential antecedents by aggregating across highly similar
constructs. Two coders – the first author and an independent researcher without knowledge of
the purpose of the research – performed this aggregation by obtaining definitions of each
antecedent from the original sources, then by matching antecedents with highly similar
interacting with the external environment, external openness, and search breadth were
grouped under the overarching construct labelled ‘external knowledge inflows’. This process
discussion after viewing scale items. Next, we selected the constructs that were measured in
more than one study and calculated their meta-analytic correlation coefficients with AC,
correcting for sampling error and measurement error. This procedure provides unbiased
estimates of the relation between two constructs and helped us highlight the more promising
predictors of AC (Hunter and Schmidt, 2004). Table 3 provides a summary of the results
ranking the identified predictors based on their aggregated correlation with AC. The studies
used to meta-analyse the constructs are provided in appendix 1, followed by the list of
constructs that were only identified in one study and therefore dropped from the analysis in
appendix 2.
12
[INSERT TABLE3 ABOUT HERE]
Effect sizes were interpreted based on Cohen (1992) and the recommendations by
Bosco et al. (2015) for relations involving behaviour. Thus, we consider 0.35 to be a strong
correlation, 0.2 to be moderate, and 0.1 to be small. Out of the 15 constructs included in our
moderate (ρ = 0.21) to large (ρ = 0.65). On the other hand, the constructs of trust,
environmental dynamism, and competitive pressure were not significantly associated with
AC when aggregating the corresponding data. We discuss each of the constructs in relation to
We now analyse the most promising antecedents of AC (Table 3). Since the aim is to
extrapolate how these findings apply to EBM, we examine the results about AC through the
lens of EBM. We draw on Rousseau and Gunia (2016) as the most current and
comprehensive review of enablers of EBM1 and then examine the 11 constructs identified as
significant predictors of AC in conjunction with the EBM enablers identified in the review
paper.
The review by Rousseau and Gunia (2016) concludes that “we have good evidence
that effective evidence-based practice adoption depends on the ability, motivation and
1
The work of Barends and Rousseau (2018) and Rynes and Bartunek (2017) are more recent review
publications on EBM. However, unlike Rousseau and Gunia (2016), neither reviews the literature on enablers of
EBM. Barends and Rousseau (2018) focus on the essential concepts of EBM and the steps involved to guide
practitioners in adopting EBM and educators to train future managers. Rynes and Bartunek (2017) reviewed the
EBM literature to identify the nature of previous work (e.g., advocacy articles, critiques, empirical work) and
evaluate the quality of empirical studies on EBM.
13
multidisciplinary research to further elaborate on each of these elements. In relation to ability,
three elementary skills for EBM are proposed as key enablers, albeit to our knowledge not
yet empirically investigated: expertise in the domain, critical thinking skills, and the
functional skills to implement each of the steps involved in EBM. With regards to motivation
to adopt EBM, Rousseau and Gunia (2016) draw on the Theory of Planned Behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991) to propose that the perceived norms regarding EBM, perceived barriers to
implement it, and the individual’s attitude towards its practice will predict its practice.
empirical research on EBM (Criado-Perez, et al., 2020). Lastly, regarding the factors that
may enable EBM under the umbrella of opportunity, Rousseau and Gunia (2016) draw on
nursing and healthcare research to suggest the following enablers: autonomy and flexibility,
involvement in decision-making.
Our meta-analysis provides further support from the AC literature for enablers in
relation to an individual’s ability, motivation, and opportunity. With regards to ability, prior
related knowledge and experience was moderately correlated with AC (ρ = 0.21). This
antecedent of AC provides some preliminary evidence that expertise in the domain is relevant
to EBM as a knowledge base is required to understand the problem at hand, seek appropriate
evidence and appraise its quality (Carlo et al., 2012). Our meta-analysis also provides
engaging with information seeking and striving towards continuous improvement (Cazan and
Indreica, 2014; DeShon and Gillespie, 2005), which would likely impact the adoption of
EBM (Criado-Perez et al., 2020). Lastly, in relation to opportunity, our findings support a
14
discretion and involvement in decision-making is therefore strongly associated with the
degree to which they identify and apply new valuable knowledge, suggesting that
influenced by the broader organisational and environmental context (Johns, 2006; Kozlowski
and Klein, 2000)). As such, it is not surprising that managers implementation of EBM is also
influenced by factors at the organisational and industry level (Criado-Perez et al., 2020). The
only factors that Rousseau and Gunia (2016) identified in the literature as organisational-
level enablers were organisational climate and leadership support, and importantly the
evidence for the latter is particularly scarce and inconclusive (Reichenpfader et al., 2015).
The authors concluded that little is known regarding organisational level enablers and
encouraged future research to draw their attention to this gap. The literature on AC provides
AC. Here we will summarise the meta-analysis findings for higher level constructs related to
relevant information and manage knowledge - were identified through our meta-analysis to
have the highest correlation (ρ=0.65) with AC. This finding indicates the important role that
information systems play in enabling an organisation to collect, store and share knowledge,
permitting its exploitation, all of which are likely to be essential for an effective adoption of
EBM.
consistent with the Rousseau and Gunia’s (2016) proposition that leadership support is
15
encouraging followers to question long-held assumptions (Bass et al., 2003), both of which
would encourage teams and individual employees to question their practices and seek the best
available evidence.
also identified as being strongly related to AC in the meta-analysis. These included employee
collaboration (ρ=0.59), knowledge sharing within the organisation (ρ=0.58), and socialisation
thus are also likely to be relevant for EBM. Our review also identified constructs related to
the collaboration and knowledge sharing with stakeholders outside the organisation as
were both strongly related to AC (ρ=0.43 and ρ=0.36 respectively). Both constructs provide
ways to learn from the external environment, a fundamental requirement for both AC and
EBM. This finding also illustrates that EBM research may need to develop domain
Lastly, resources available for innovative tasks were also strongly related to AC
(ρ=0.52). The firm’s ability to assign resources to novel value-creating opportunities impacts
the capability employees have to identify and exploit innovative solutions (Bierly et al., 2009;
Burcharth et al., 2015; Chang et al., 2014). Similar to AC, EBM adoption is likely to require
included in one study, thus could not be included in our meta-analysis of AC. For example,
16
were found to have a positive significant effect on AC (Chang et al., 2014; Tzokas et al.,
2015; Wang et al., 2018). Similarly, the firms knowledge base, their variety of business
partners, the degree of interorganisational trust, and the exchange of tacit knowledge were
also found to be positively associated with AC (Carlo et al., 2012; Ebers and Maurer, 2014;
Lazzarotti et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Whilst worth highlighting as potentially relevant
factors for EBM, these constructs have been examined less in the AC literature and need
further empirical testing before determining if they are promising enablers of AC and EBM.
far, environmental factors have received little attention in the EBM literature and in studies
on AC. In fact, Rousseau and Gunia (2016) do not identify any environmental level enablers
of EBM besides suggesting that the support of institutions to curate and enable the access to
knowledge would help facilitate EBM. Similarly, our review only identified two constructs as
these issues did not emerge as significant because they play a contingency role, moderating
the link between enablers and AC (e.g., Ben-Oz and Greve, 2015).
6. Discussion
The opportunities and challenges in the workplace resulting from the overwhelming
volume of available information exacerbate the need to study the enablers of EBM. This is
not merely of academic interest; the effective use of the available evidence is becoming a
understand enablers likely important for EBM by drawing on the related literature of AC. The
results of our meta-analysis highlight 11 antecedents of AC, which are also potential enablers
of EBM. At the firm level this included: information system capabilities, transformational
17
innovative tasks, external knowledge inflows, employee socialisation and interorganisational
to engage with learning tasks, and prior related knowledge and experience. These findings
provide promising and actionable guidance for researchers and practitioners alike.
The findings from this study provide important insights for EBM that merit further
examination. Most importantly, the conceptual overlap between AC and EBM presented in
Table 1 requires empirical testing. What is the convergent and divergent validity of AC and
EBM? Further, future research needs to empirically test whether the AC antecedents
identified in the meta-analysis are also important facilitating conditions for EBM, and the
mechanisms through which they impact its practice. The empirical findings related to AC and
enablers of EBM, and are especially helpful in pointing towards relevant organisational level
enablers. These have been largely overlooked in the EBM literature and require urgent
attention. Understanding the enablers of EBM is important for the future workplace, so that
the proliferation of information and emerging technologies such as AI can be harnessed for
Our study provides less guidance on factors external to the organisation that impact EBM
through coercive, normative or mimetic processes and hence influence which sources of
evidence and decision-making processes are considered legitimate (See DiMaggio and
Powell, 2000; as well as Palthe, 2014). For example, Criado-Perez et al. (2020) found that
industry-wide routines and norms in the built environment sector favour experiential
evidence over scientific research, a practice that restricts the sources of evidence managers
draw on, thus putting boundary conditions on their capability to implement EBM. Moving
18
forward, regulatory changes aimed at increasing transparency may encourage managers to
seek for more reputable and systematic sources of evidence. The regulatory changes
implemented in the European Union in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis (see
Wouters and Van Kerckhoven, 2012) and those recommended by the Haynes Royal
Commission in Australia (see Deloitte, 2019) may provide interesting cases to study the
effect on EBM adoption in the financial sector. Overall, exploration of the relationship
between varied institutional arrangements and EBM adoption could clarify the effects of
more distal forces and better convey the applications of our findings.
Given the theoretical overlap of AC and EBM, the findings of our study assist in
less is known about the steps of EBM that are not represented in AC. Each of these two steps
– ‘ask’, which is about identifying a practical problem and ‘assess’, which involves
factors and are critical steps of EBM to understand. Thus, understanding the multilevel
enablers of these steps is a high priority for researchers. The capability for employees to
identify practical problems and challenge assumptions as part of the step ‘ask’, will likely be
(Anderson et al., 2014; Tucker et al., 2007). The ‘assess’ step may also be susceptible to the
Dossinger, 2017).
Building on the findings of this paper, another area of research that requires prioritising is
the development of skills necessary to adopt EBM, particularly the skills required for tasks
appraising the validity and applicability of evidence will likely require a skilled manager.
Some tertiary education programs are beginning to include EBM as a core element of their
19
graduate management programs (see Keating, 2016). Thus, opportunities for research will
emerge to assess the efficacy of these programs to develop evidence-based managers and the
roles (i.e., top vs lower manager, specialist vs generalist, employee vs freelance) that are best
technology uncovers the potential of monitoring further intangible factors in real-time (e.g.,
the public’s sentiment towards a brand or product), the nature of available and relevant data
will cross the traditional boundaries of management into new disciplines, calling for a wider
range of expertise.
Lastly, there are important implications for future research regarding research design and
studies (95%). We call for experimental designs and quasi-experimental field studies that can
control for confounding factors and test for causal mechanisms, as well as longitudinal
studies with multiple data points to understand the pattern of how the relationships unfold
over time (Podsakoff and Podsakoff, 2019). Furthermore, as our study illustrates EBM
research will necessitate multilevel theorizing. Future research would benefit from
considering and justifying the level at which the mechanisms and EBM itself are being
operationalised. In doing so, scholars will be more sensitive to the assumptions inherent to
each level and avoid assuming similar relationships between constructs across different levels
of analysis (Paruchuri et al., 2018). Cross-level designs will also examine how the effect of
lower level enablers depend on higher level factors or vice versa. For example, collaboration
between departments may prime individuals to question assumptions, enhancing EBM, but
only if the individual employees are motivated to engage in learning tasks. Advanced
methods of data analysis such as mixture modelling and latent class analysis can be helpful in
exploring heterogeneous changes across time and discern the effect of group-level variables
20
Accurate measurement of EBM is also vital and requires further development. The time is
ripe for the development and validation of a scale of EBM that comprises all six steps of the
framework. For field studies, we recommend building on previously published scales (e.g.,
Criado-Perez et al., 2020; Jepsen and Rousseau, 2016) and adopting mixed methods to assess
the level of EBM implementation. Recent research by Criado-Perez et al. (2020) found a
substantial difference in the reported levels of EBM between survey responses and face-to-
face interviews after some probing. Notably, the qualitative data illustrated the dissonance
between academics and senior managers when referring to EBM, showing different
expectations regarding the amount of evidence collected, and the reliance on personal
experience over scientific research. Self-reported levels of evidence-based practice have also
been found to overestimate its use in other disciplines (Adams et al., 1999), hence
triangulation is important to improve the validity of the data collected. Relying solely on peer
evaluations of EBM also presents limitations such as the potential lack of awareness about
the degree to which their manager or colleague performed each of the steps involved in EBM.
This can be particularly salient in hierarchical organisations where employees are not
necessarily aware of the process that led to a particular decision. Laboratory studies provide
many opportunities to measure EBM more accurately as they can include objective measures
of EBM. Researchers can measure how effectively an individual diagnoses the problem, how
much information an individual collects before making a decision, how the participant
evaluates its quality, how effectively multiple pieces of evidence are aggregated, and finally
whether the final decision is in line with the strongest evidence that was available to them.
This study has identified promising enablers that are well worth employing to
influence the adoption of EBM. The practical implications will differ for each of the major
stakeholders involved within the business field. For each stakeholder, we draw on the
21
findings from this study to create a checklist of actions that were supported by our meta-
analysis and are likely applicable for EBM. This checklist is presented in Table 4. Note that it
is premature to make bold statements about the effectiveness of the identified enablers given
the boundary conditions of this study – we are drawing from insights about a meta-analysis
Perhaps one of the most influential roles in creating a situational context that favours
EBM is the top management of an organisation. Building on the potential enablers identified
in this study, Table 4 highlights some of the actions and strategic decisions that can create a
favourable organisational climate for EBM. Executives and general managers can facilitate
capabilities to enable efficient collection and storage of data, making it easily accessible
across the organisation; in the digital era, this finding is of little surprise. Creating a work
environment that fosters enquiry and exploration while having the time and resources to do
so can also facilitate EBM, and perhaps this aspect is most crucial given the digital era seeks
to drive efficiency and speed. Collaboration across functions and with stakeholders beyond
Line managers can also contribute to fostering EBM. Besides implementing EBM
themselves, their team members may also feel motivated and courageous enough to question
assumptions and apply EBM if they feel empowered and judged based on the quality of their
decision-making, rather than solely on end results. Adopting informal structures and a
22
transformational leadership style will also contribute to the level of socialisation and
Finally, there are important implications for HR managers regarding recruitment and
training. The findings suggest HR managers can consider an applicant’s skills for critical
thinking and motivation to engage in learning tasks. Training provided to managers across
the organisation that focuses on developing these skills would likely facilitate EBM
implementation. To foster such motivation for learning, and embed EBM, EBM skills can be
developed by tackling their own organisational problems with cross-functional teams rather
than learning about decontextualized case studies with conclusions that may not apply to their
context. By focusing on their own organization, managers will have the domain knowledge
required, and the exercise may result in an organizational improvement of the operational
efficiency; furthermore, the training can provide a tangible exemplar to other employees of
Industry bodies and regulators can also foster EBM by influencing the perceived
meaning and value of its practice. Often seen as a reference for best practice, these
organisations can become actively involved with universities to help develop and disseminate
scientific research that is both rigorous and relevant to practice. In doing so, industry bodies
multiple sources of evidence, rather than solely relying on what is portrayed as best-practice
by a particular organisation.
Lastly, educators play an important role in developing students’ skills and self-
information that includes unsubstantiated fads and fake news, it is fundamental that educators
teach students how to acquire evidence from the multiple sources available, and how to think
critically to make evidence-based decisions (see Dietz et al., 2014, as well as Erez and Grant,
23
2014). For example, academic assessments in courses that teach management skills may need
to move away from closed book examinations testing knowledge and memorisation, to favour
evaluations of problem-solving skills through a systematic and judicious use of the sources of
7. Conclusion
To bolster our understanding of EBM and carve a roadmap for future research and
practice, this paper extracted insights from empirical research on the construct of AC. The
level, the importance of being able to store, access and share integrated and relevant
information across the organisation was highlighted as a promising enabler of EBM. Our
findings also suggest a transformational leadership style and the availability of resources for
innovative tasks may influence EBM adoption. Lastly, the constructs of employee
noteworthy that this cluster of constructs about collaboration and knowledge exchange was a
dominant theme for the potential enablers EBM implementation, and this underscores the
critical role for multiple stakeholders needed to shift EBM practice in organisations. At the
individual level, our findings support and extend prior work (Rousseau and Gunia, 2016) that
an individual’s ability, motivation and opportunity to adopt EBM will also influence its
adoption. Our review highlights each of these components providing evidence that prior
are all associated with AC, and are likely important enablers of EBM. In conclusion, our
study highlighted that we have much to learn from the AC literature. The findings provided
help to prioritise the future research agenda on organisational enablers of EBM and provide
advice for practitioners who strive to foster EBM in their work environment.
24
Key Practical and Research Implications
• Collaboration and knowledge sharing are a predominant theme among the identified
enablers for EBM. Practitioners could start to change practice on these issues now.
Researchers could work with these organisations to follow up on the efficacy of such
interventions with quasi-experimental research designs to move the EBM practice and
literature beyond the predominant focus on individual decision-making to how evidence
is meaningfully derived from collaboration and knowledge sharing across diverse
stakeholders.
• Although not the primary focus, insights about potential individual enablers of EBM were
also identified: prior related knowledge, motivation for learning and employee
empowerment. These enablers concur with insights from Rousseau and Gunia’s (2016)
review of related multidisciplinary research.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Mahreen Khan, Amirali Minbashian, and our anonymous reviewers for
25
Appendix 1
Construct References
1. Information system capabilities (Felipe et al., 2016; Roberts, 2015; Setia and Patel,
2013; Zhang et al., 2018)
2. Transformational leadership (Ferreras Méndez et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018)
3. Employee collaboration (Beheregarai Finger et al., 2014; Mennens et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2018)
4. Employee knowledge sharing (Ali et al., 2018; Kang and Lee, 2017)
5. Resources available for (Bierly et al., 2009; Burcharth et al., 2015; Chang et
innovative tasks al., 2014)
6. External knowledge inflows (Bierly et al., 2009; Burcharth et al., 2015; Ferreras
Méndez et al., 2018; Kostopoulos et al., 2011;
Mennens et al., 2018)
7. Employee socialisation (Ali et al., 2018; Ebers and Maurer, 2014; Roberts,
2015)
8. Interorganisational collaboration (Beheregarai Finger et al., 2014; Chowdhury et al.,
2017; Ebers and Maurer, 2014; Leal-Rodríguez et
al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016)
9. Empowerment of employees (Ebers and Maurer, 2014; Ferreras Méndez et al.,
2018; Siachou and Gkorezis, 2014)
10. Tendency to engage with (Ojo et al., 2017; Ojo and Raman, 2016, 2017; Yao
learning tasks and Chang, 2017; Yildiz et al., 2018)
11. Prior related knowledge and (Bierly et al., 2009; Ojo et al., 2017; Ojo and Raman,
experience 2016, 2017; Yildiz et al., 2018)
12. Trust among employees (Ebers and Maurer, 2014; Zhang et al., 2018)
13. Environmental dynamism (Ben-Oz and Henrich R Greve, 2015; Schubert et al.,
2018)
14. Competitive pressure (Kim and Park, 2017; Schubert et al., 2018)
26
Appendix 2
Construct Reference
Firm level
Firm size and firm age (Zou et al., 2018)
Performance below aspirations (Ben-Oz and Henrich R. Greve, 2015)
Customer relationship capability (Tzokas et al., 2015)
Resource flexibility (Chang et al., 2014)
Knowledge depth and diversity (Carlo et al., 2012)
Business partner variety (Lazzarotti et al., 2015)
Interorganisational trust (Ebers and Maurer, 2014)
Exchange of tacit knowledge (Wang et al., 2016)
Firms entrepreneurial orientation (Bierly et al., 2009)
Innovation incentives (Wang et al., 2018)
Individual level
Colleagues workstyle and knowledge (Backmann et al., 2015)
Bisociative cognitive style (Lowik et al., 2017)
Social interaction (extent and diversity) (Hotho et al., 2012)
27
TABLES
Emphasis on
EBM Steps
Evidence-based management Absorptive Capacity
Identifying the problem & translating a
1. Ask practical issue or problem into an answerable Not included
question
Retrieving evidence from four sources of
Acquiring valuable external
evidence: organisational data, decision
2. Acquire knowledge. Sources not
makers expertise, scientific research,
specified
stakeholder’s concerns
Processing to understand
Critically evaluating the quality of all
3. Appraise new knowledge and to
available evidence, internal and external
assess relevance and utility
Adapting the external
Pulling together the evidence from multiple
4. Aggregate knowledge, integrating it
sources and synthesizing
with prior knowledge
Incorporating the evidence into the decision-
5. Apply Exploiting new knowledge
making process
Evaluating the outcome of the decision taken
6. Assess Not included.
to inform future decisions
Table 2. Methods used in empirical absorptive capacity research during the last decade
Number of
studies
identifieda
Timing of data collection
- Cross sectional 41 (95%)
- Lagged 2 (5%)
Level at which AC is measured
- Individual level 9 (21%)
- Business unit level 4 (9%)
- Organisational level 30 (70%)
Level of IVsb
- Individual level 10 (23%)
- Team / business unit 4 (9%)
- Organisational level 28 (65%)
- Environmental 2 (5%)
a. Percentage of studies shown in brackets, calculated from the 43 articles that focused on
antecedents of AC.
b. The total number of studies categorised under ‘Level of IVs’ is greater that the number of studies
analysed. This is because one study included an organisational and an environmental level IVs.
28
Table 3. Meta-analytic relationships between absorptive capacity and its antecedents
29
Table 4. Recommendations for enabling evidence-based management
HR Managers Prioritise critical thinking and EBM related skills during selection and
training by:
Nurturing a questioning mindset and an ability to think beyond
disciplinary boundaries 6,10
On-the-job EBM training, addressing real organisational problems11
Industry bodies Actively support the creation and dissemination of quality research
findings that go beyond benchmarking of ‘best practices’ 6,8
Note. Numbers refer to the following constructs, which map onto the significant meta-analysis findings in Table
3:
1
. Information systems capability; 2. Transformational leadership; 3. Employee collaboration; 4. Employee
knowledge sharing; 5. Resources available for innovative tasks; 6. External knowledge inflows; 7. Employee
socialisation; 8. Interorganisational collaboration; 9. Empowerment of employees; 10. Tendency
to engage with learning tasks; 11. Prior related knowledge and experience;
30
References
Adams AS, Soumerai SB, Lomas J, et al. (1999) Evidence of self-report bias in assessing
adherence to guidelines. International Journal for Quality Health Care 11(3): 187–192.
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/11.3.187.
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50: 179–211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ali I, Ul Musawir A and Ali M (2018) Impact of knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity
on project performance: the moderating role of social processes. Journal of Knowledge
Management 22(2): 453–477. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0449.
Anderson N, Potočnik K and Zhou J (2014) Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A
State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework.
Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206314527128.
Backmann J, Hoegl M and Cordery JL (2015) Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in
Interorganizational New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 32(6): 861–877. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12295.
Barends E and Briner RB (2014) Teaching Evidence-Based Practice: Lessons From the
Pioneers An Interview With Amanda Burls and Gordon Guyatt. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 13(3): 476–483. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2014.0136.
Barends E and Rousseau DM (2018) Evidence-Based Management : How to Use Evidence to
Make Better Organizational Decisions. 1st ed. New York: Kogan Page.
Barends E, Rousseau DM and Briner RB (2014) Evidence Based Management. The Basic
Principles. Amsterdam. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ, Jung DI, et al. (2003) Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2):
207–218. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
Beheregarai Finger A, B Flynn B and Laureanos Paiva E (2014) Anticipation of new
technologies: supply chain antecedents and competitive performance. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 34(6). Universidade Federal de
Alagoas, Maceio, Brazil: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 60-62 Toller Lane
Bradford West Yorkshire BD8 9BY United Kingdom: 807–828. Available at:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1709764903?accountid=12763.
Ben-Oz C and Greve Henrich R. (2015) Short- and Long-Term Performance Feedback and
Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management 41(7): 1827–1853. DOI:
10.1177/0149206312466148.
Ben-Oz C and Greve Henrich R (2015) Short- and Long-Term Performance Feedback and
Absorptive Capacity. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 41(7): 1827–1853. DOI:
10.1177/0149206312466148.
Bierly PE, Damanpour F, Santoro MD, et al. (2009) The Application of External Knowledge:
Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation. Journal of Management
Studies 46(3). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: 481–509. Available at:
http://10.0.4.87/j.1467-6486.2009.00829.x.
Bosco FA, Aguinis H, Singh K, et al. (2015) Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of
Applied Psychology 100(2): 431–449. DOI: 10.1037/a0038047.
Briner RB, Denyer D and Rousseau DM (2009) Evidence-Based Management: Concept
Clean-up Time? Academy of Management Perspectives 23(4): 19–32. DOI:
10.5465/AMP.2009.45590138.
Burcharth ALL de A, Lettl C and Ulhoi JP (2015) Extending organizational antecedents of
absorptive capacity: Organizational characteristics that encourage experimentation.
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE 90(A, SI): 269–284.
31
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.024.
Camisón C and Forés B (2010) Knowledge absorptive capacity: New insights for its
conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research 63(7). Elsevier Inc.:
707–715. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.022.
Carlo JL, Lyytinen K and Rose GM (2012) A KNOWLEDGE-BASED MODEL OF
RADICAL INNOVATION IN SMALL SOFTWARE FIRMS. MIS QUARTERLY 36(3):
865–895.
Cazan A-M and Indreica SE (2014) Need for Cognition and Approaches to Learning among
University Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127. Elsevier B.V.:
134–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.227.
Chang C-H, Chen Y-S and Lin M-JJ (2014) Determinants of absorptive capacity: contrasting
manufacturing vs services enterprises. R & D MANAGEMENT 44(5): 466–483. DOI:
10.1111/radm.12086.
Cheatham B, Javanmardian K and Samandari H (2019) Confronting the risks of artificial
intelligence.
Chowdhury M, Jayaram J and Prajogo D (2017) The influence of socialisation and absorptive
capacity on buyer’s innovation performance. International Journal of Production
Research 55(23): 7022–7039. Available at: http://10.0.4.56/00207543.2017.1346321.
Cohen J (1992) A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin. DOI:
10.1016/j.jorganchem.2011.01.025.
Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning
and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128. DOI: 10.2307/2393553.
Criado-Perez C, Collins Catherine G., Jackson CJ, et al. (2020) Beyond an ‘informed
opinion’: evidence-based practice in the built environment. Architectural Engineering
and Design Management 16(1). Taylor & Francis: 23–40. DOI:
10.1080/17452007.2019.1617670.
Criado-Perez C, Collins Catherine G, Jackson CJ, et al. (2020) Beyond an ‘Informed
Opinion’: Evidence-Based Practice in the Built Environment. Architectural Engineering
and Design Management.
Deloitte (2019) A new era. Actions from the Hayne Royal Commission for each sector.
DeShon RP and Gillespie JZ (2005) A motivated action theory account of goal orientation.
The Journal of applied psychology 90(6): 1096–1127. DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1096.
Dietz J, Antonakis J, Hoffrage U, et al. (2014) Teaching Evidence-Based Management With
A Focus on. Academy of Management Learning & Education 13(3): 397–414. DOI:
10.5465/amle.2013.0197.
DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW (2000) The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. Advances in Strategic Management. DOI:
10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1.
Duarte C, Van Den Wymelenberg K and Rieger C (2013) Revealing occupancy patterns in an
office building through the use of occupancy sensor data. Energy and Buildings. DOI:
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.062.
Duffy F (2012) Reflections on Stage M: The Dog that Didn’t Bark. In: Mallory-Hill S,
Preiser WPE, and Watson CG (eds) Enhancing Building Performance. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell, pp. 315–362.
Ebers M and Maurer I (2014) Connections count: How relational embeddedness and
relational empowerment foster absorptive capacity. RESEARCH POLICY 43(2): 318–
332. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.017.
Erez A and Grant AM (2014) Separating data from intuition: Bringing evidence into the
management classroom. Academy of Management Learning and Education 13(1): 104–
32
119. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2013.0098.
Felipe CM, Roldan JL and Leal-Rodriguez AL (2016) An explanatory and predictive model
for organizational agility. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 69(10): 4624–4631.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.014.
Ferreras Méndez JL, Sanz Valle R and Alegre J (2018) Transformational leadership and
absorptive capacity: an analysis of the organisational catalysts for this relationship.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 30(2): 211–226. Available at:
http://10.0.4.56/09537325.2017.1299859.
Göçer Ö, Hua Y and Göçer K (2015) Completing the missing link in building design process:
Enhancing post-occupancy evaluation method for effective feedback for building
performance. Building and Environment. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.011.
Gupta M and George JF (2016) Toward the development of a big data analytics capability.
Information and Management 53(8). Elsevier B.V.: 1049–1064. DOI:
10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004.
Harrison SH and Dossinger K (2017) Pliable guidance: A multilevel model of curiosity,
feedback seeking, and feedback giving in creative work. Academy of Management
Journal. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2015.0247.
Hotho JJ, Becker-Ritterspach F and Saka-Helmhout A (2012) Enriching Absorptive Capacity
through Social Interaction. BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 23(3): 383–401.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00749.x.
Jarrahi MH (2018) Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in
organizational decision making. Business Horizons 61(4). ‘Kelley School of Business,
Indiana University’: 577–586. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007.
Jepsen D and Rousseau DM (2016) Uncovering the role of managerial evidence use in the
employee experience of leadership and learning. In: 2nd HR Division International
Conference, Sydney, 2016.
Johns G (2006) The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behavior. Academy of
Management Review 31(2): 386–408. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181.
Jordan MI and Mitchell TM (2015) Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects.
Science 349(6245): 255–260. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa8415.
Kang M and Lee M-J (2017) Absorptive capacity, knowledge sharing, and innovative
behaviour of R&D employees. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(2):
219–232. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1211265.
Kim C-H and Park B Il (2017) Knowledge spillovers from inward foreign direct investment
in the banking industry. Management Decision 55(9). London: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited: 2053–2072. Available at:
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1947039137?accountid=12763.
Knippenberg D Van, Dahlander L and George G (2015) From the Editors : Information ,
Attention , and Decision Making. 58: 649–657.
Kostopoulos K, Papalexandris A, Papachroni M, et al. (2011) Absorptive capacity,
innovation, and financial performance. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 64(12):
1335–1343. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.005.
Kozlowski S and Klein K (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. Available at:
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2000-16936-001 (accessed 8 October 2018).
Lane PJ, Koka BR and Pathak S (2006) The reification of Absorptive Capacity: A critical
review and rejuvenatino of the construct. Academy of Management Review 31(4): 833–
863. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2006.22527456.
Lazzarotti V, Manzini R and Pellegrini L (2015) Is your open-innovation successful? The
mediating role of a firm’s organizational and social context. INTERNATIONAL
33
JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 26(19): 2453–2485. DOI:
10.1080/09585192.2014.1003080.
Leal-Rodríguez AL, Roldán JL, Ariza-Montes JA, et al. (2014) From potential absorptive
capacity to innovation outcomes in project teams: The conditional mediating role of the
realized absorptive capacity in a relational learning context. International Journal of
Project Management 32(6): 894–907. Available at:
http://10.0.3.248/j.ijproman.2014.01.005.
Lewin AY, Massini S and Peeters C (2011) Microfoundations of internal and external
absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0525.
Lowik S, Kraaijenbrink J and Groen AJ (2017) Antecedents and effects of individual
absorptive capacity: a micro-foundational perspective on open innovation. Journal of
Knowledge Management 21(6): 1319–1341. DOI: 10.1108/JKM-09-2016-0410.
Lu Y (2017) Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research issues.
Journal of Industrial Information Integration 6. Elsevier Inc.: 1–10. DOI:
10.1016/j.jii.2017.04.005.
Mennens K, Van Gils A, Odekerken-Schroder G, et al. (2018) Exploring antecedents of
service innovation performance in manufacturing SMEs. INTERNATIONAL SMALL
BUSINESS JOURNAL-RESEARCHING ENTREPRENEURSHIP 36(5): 500–520. DOI:
10.1177/0266242617749687.
Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, et al. (2005) Making psychological theory useful for
implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Quality & safety in health
care 14(1): 26–33. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
Moore D a. and Flynn FJ (2008) 9 The Case for Behavioral Decision Research in
Organizational Behavior. The Academy of Management Annals 2(1): 399–431. DOI:
10.1080/19416520802211636.
O’Leary DE (2013) Artificial intelligence and big data. IEEE Intelligent Systems 28(2): 96–
99. DOI: 10.1109/MIS.2013.39.
Ojo AO and Raman M (2016) The role of prior experience and goal orientation in individual
absorptive capacity. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116(4): 723–739.
Available at: http://10.0.4.84/IMDS-05-2015-0187.
Ojo AO and Raman M (2017) Individual differences and knowledge acquisition capability in
joint ICT project teams in Malaysia. International Journal of Technology, Policy &
Management 17(1): 20–39. Available at: http://10.0.5.224/IJTPM.2017.10004568.
Ojo AO, Raman M and Chong CW (2017) Microlevel antecedents of absorptive capacity in
joint project engineering teams. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH REVIEW 40(9): 990–
1006. DOI: 10.1108/MRR-08-2016-0202.
Palthe J (2014) Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations:
Implications for Managing Change. Management and Organizational Studies 1(2): 59–
66. DOI: 10.5430/mos.v1n2p59.
Paruchuri S, Perry-Smith JE, Chattopadhyay P, et al. (2018) New Ways of Seeing: Pitfalls
and Opportunities in Multilevel Research. Academy of Management Journal 61(3): 797–
801. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2018.4003.
Podsakoff PM and Podsakoff NP (2019) Experimental designs in management and leadership
research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability.
Leadership Quarterly 30(1). Elsevier: 11–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002.
Reichenpfader U, Carlfjord S and Nilsen P (2015) Leadership in evidence-based practice: a
systematic review. Leadership in Health Services 28(4): 298–316. DOI: 10.1108/LHS-
08-2014-0061.
Roberts N (2015) Absorptive capacity, organizational antecedents, and environmental
dynamism. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 68(11): 2426–2433. DOI:
34
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.019.
Roblek V, Meško M and Krapež A (2016) A Complex View of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open
6(2). DOI: 10.1177/2158244016653987.
Rossit DA, Tohmé F and Frutos M (2019) Industry 4.0: Smart Scheduling. International
Journal of Production Research 57(12). Taylor & Francis: 3802–3813. DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2018.1504248.
Rousseau DM and Gunia B (2016) Evidence-Based Practice: The Psychology of EBP
Implementation. Annual Review of Psychology. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-
033336.
Rynes SL and Bartunek JM (2017) Evidence-Based Management: Foundations,
Development, Controversies and Future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior 4(1): annurev-orgpsych-032516-113306. DOI:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113306.
Sadler-Smith E and Shefy E (2004) The intuitive executive : Understanding and applying ’
gut feel ’ in decision-making. Academy of Management Executive 18(4): 76–91.
Schubert T, Baier E and Rammer C (2018) Firm capabilities, technological dynamism and
the internationalisation of innovation: A behavioural approach. Journal of International
Business Studies 49(1). Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany; CIRCLE, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden ; Hochschule für Wirtschaft, Technik und Kultur, Baden–Baden,
Germany ; Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany ;
Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany; CIRCLE, : Palgrave Macmillan: 70–95. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0101-0.
Schwartz B and Ward A (2004) Doing Better but Feeling Worse: The Paradox of Choice. In:
Positive Psychology in Practice, pp. 86–104. DOI: 10.1002/9780470939338.ch6.
Setia P and Patel PC (2013) How information systems help create OM capabilities:
Consequents and antecedents of operational absorptive capacity. JOURNAL OF
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 31(6, SI): 409–431. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2013.07.013.
Siachou E and Gkorezis P (2014) Do empowered employees absorb knowledge? An
empirical investigation of the effects of psychological empowerment dimensions on
absorptive capacity. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH REVIEW 37(2): 130–151. DOI:
10.1108/MRR-07-2012-0166.
Smith SF and Lilienfeld SO (2015) The response modulation hypothesis of psychopathy: A
meta-analytic and narrative analysis. Psychological Bulletin 141(6): 1145–1177. DOI:
10.1037/bul0000024.
Song Y, Gnyawali DR, Srivastava MK, et al. (2018) In Search of Precision in Absorptive
Capacity Research: A Synthesis of the Literature and Consolidation of Findings.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT 44(6): 2343–2374. DOI: 10.1177/0149206318773861.
Todorova G and Durisin B (2007) Absorptive Capacity : Valuing a Reconceptualization
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : NOTE ABSORPTIVE
CAPACITY : VALUING A. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 774–786.
Tucker AL, Nembhard IM and Edmondson AC (2007) Implementing New Practices: An
Empirical Study of Organizational Learning in Hospital Intensive Care Units.
Management Science 53(6): 894–907. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0692.
Tzokas N, Kim YA, Akbar H, et al. (2015) Absorptive capacity and performance: The role of
customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs. INDUSTRIAL
MARKETING MANAGEMENT 47(SI): 134–142. DOI:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.033.
van Doorn S, Heyden MLM and Volberda HW (2017) Enhancing Entrepreneurial
Orientation in Dynamic Environments: The Interplay between Top Management Team
Advice-Seeking and Absorptive Capacity. Long Range Planning 50(2). Elsevier Ltd:
35
134–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.lrp.2016.06.003.
Volberda HW, Foss NJ and Lyles MA (2010) Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive
Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field. Organization Science
(September 2018). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1513184.
Wang L, Zhao JZ and Zhou KZ (2018) How do incentives motivate absorptive capacity
development? The mediating role of employee learning and relational contingencies.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH 85: 226–237. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.010.
Wang X, Arnett DB and Hou L (2016) Using external knowledge to improve organizational
innovativeness: understanding the knowledge leveraging process. JOURNAL OF
BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING 31(2): 164–173. DOI: 10.1108/JBIM-04-
2014-0064.
Whelan E and Teigland R (2013) Transactive memory systems as a collective filter for
mitigating information overload in digitally enabled organizational groups. Information
and Organization 23(3). Elsevier Ltd: 177–197. DOI:
10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.06.001.
World Economic Forum (2018) The Future of Jobs Report.
Wouters J and Van Kerckhoven S (2012) The EU’s Internal and External Regulatory Actions
after the Outbreak of the 2008 Financial Crisis. SSRN Electronic Journal 5(5): 201–206.
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1898680.
Yao FK and Chang S (2017) Do Individual Employees’ Learning Goal Orientation and Civic
Virtue Matter? A Micro-Foundations Perspective on Firm Absorptive Capacity.
Strategic Management Journal. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2636.
Yildiz HE, Murtic A, Zander U, et al. (2018) What Fosters Individual-Level Absorptive
Capacity in MNCs? An Extended Motivation–Ability–Opportunity Framework.
Management International Review. Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden ; Stockholm
School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden ; Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden:
Springer Science & Business Media: 1–37. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-018-
0367-x.
Zahra S and George G (2002) Absorptive Capacity : A Review , Reconceptualization , and
Extension Author ( s ): Shaker A . Zahra and Gerard George Source : The Academy of
Management Review , Vol . 27 , No . 2 ( Apr ., 2002 ), pp . 185-203 Published by :
Academy of Management Stable U. The Academy of Management Review 27(2): 185–
203. DOI: 10.2307/4134351.
Zahra SA, Filatotchev I and Wright M (2009) How do threshold firms sustain corporate
entrepreneurship? The role of boards and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business
Venturing 24(3). Elsevier B.V.: 248–260. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.09.001.
Zhang M, Zhao X and Lyles M (2018) Effects of absorptive capacity, trust and information
systems on product innovation. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPERATIONS &
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT 38(2): 493–512. DOI: 10.1108/IJOPM-11-2015-0687.
Zou T, Ertug G and George G (2018) The capacity to innovate: a meta-analysis of absorptive
capacity. Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice 20(2). Routledge: 87–121. DOI:
10.1080/14479338.2018.1428105.
36