IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v13y2019i1p448-456n39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linearization and discretization risks in knowledge management

Author

Listed:
  • Bratianu Constantin

    (Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the limitations induced in Knowledge Management by the processes of linearization and discretization, which happen frequently in decision-making. Linearization is a result of applying linear thinking models in decision-making, regardless of the complexity of knowledge management phenomena. Knowledge and all the other intangible resources are nonlinear entities and they should be evaluated with nonlinear metrics. However, in many situations managers use simple solutions based on linear thinking models and get large errors in their decision-making, with significant negative consequences in management. Also, linear thinking model is dominant in legislation, which may lead to significant errors in managerial decision-making. Discretization is a process in which an entity with a continuous representation, like a knowledge field, is transformed into a piecewise entity to be handled more easily. Also, social media uses discretized systems for different evaluations which should be interpreted accordingly. For instance, counting the number of “like” on Facebook for a certain message or image may lead to the conclusion that friendship is proportional with the number of “friends”, which might not be in concordance with reality. Knowledge management is a complex activity dealing with knowledge, which means nonlinear entities. Using linear thinking models and discretization methods in evaluations and decision-making may lead to significant errors and negative consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Bratianu Constantin, 2019. "Linearization and discretization risks in knowledge management," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 448-456, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:448-456:n:39
    DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2019-0039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0039
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/picbe-2019-0039?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Groves & Charles Vance & Yongsun Paik, 2008. "Linking Linear/Nonlinear Thinking Style Balance and Managerial Ethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 305-325, June.
    2. Constantin Bratianu & Simona Vasilache, 2010. "A factorial analysis of the managerial linear thinking model," International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 393-407.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Constantin BRATIANU, 2015. "Defining A Spectrum For Strategic Thinking," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Constantin BRATIANU, 2015. "Developing Strategic Thinking in Business Education," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 3(3), pages 409-429, September.
    3. Hadad Shahrazad, 2017. "Strategies for developing knowledge economy in Romania," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 12(3), pages 416-430, September.
    4. Lamberto Zollo & Massimiliano Matteo Pellegrini & Cristiano Ciappei, 2017. "What Sparks Ethical Decision Making? The Interplay Between Moral Intuition and Moral Reasoning: Lessons from the Scholastic Doctrine," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(4), pages 681-700, November.
    5. Bratianu Constantin, 2018. "Intellectual capital research and practice: 7 myths and one golden rule," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(2), pages 859-879, June.
    6. Adriana Zaiț & Constantin Bratianu & Elena‐Mădălina Vătămănescu & Andreia Gabriela Andrei & Ioana Alexandra Horodnic, 2021. "Interdisciplinarity: A complexity approach towards academic research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 294-306, May.
    7. Chase Thiel & Zhanna Bagdasarov & Lauren Harkrider & James Johnson & Michael Mumford, 2012. "Leader Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: Strategies for Sensemaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(1), pages 49-64, April.
    8. Constantin Bratianu & Shahrazad Hadad & Ruxandra Bejinaru, 2020. "Paradigm Shift in Business Education: A Competence-Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    9. Chaim Letwin & David Wo & Robert Folger & Darryl Rice & Regina Taylor & Brendan Richard & Shannon Taylor, 2016. "The “Right” and the “Good” in Ethical Leadership: Implications for Supervisors’ Performance and Promotability Evaluations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(4), pages 743-755, September.
    10. Bejinaru Ruxandra, 2017. "Knowledge strategies aiming to improve the intellectual capital of universities," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 12(3), pages 500-523, September.
    11. Mary Crossan & Daina Mazutis & Gerard Seijts, 2013. "In Search of Virtue: The Role of Virtues, Values and Character Strengths in Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(4), pages 567-581, April.
    12. Brătianu Constantin, 2018. "A holistic view of the organizational knowledge dynamics," HOLISTICA – Journal of Business and Public Administration, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 7-22, August.
    13. Yongsun Paik & Jong Min Lee & Yong Suhk Pak, 2019. "Convergence in International Business Ethics? A Comparative Study of Ethical Philosophies, Thinking Style, and Ethical Decision-Making Between US and Korean Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 839-855, May.
    14. Jinhyo Joseph Yun & Zheng Liu & Euiseob Jeong & Sangwoo Kim & Kyunghun Kim, 2022. "The Difference in Open Innovation between Open Access and Closed Access, According to the Change of Collective Intelligence and Knowledge Amount," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.
    15. Ibrahim Alnawas & Nabil Ghantous & Jane Hemsley-Brown, 2023. "Can CSR foster brand defense? A moderated-mediation model of the role of brand passion," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 30(3), pages 190-206, May.
    16. Ruxandra BEJINARU, 2017. "Universities in the Knowledge Economy," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 5(2), pages 251-271, June.
    17. Eranova, Mariya & Prashantham, Shameen, 2016. "Decision making and paradox: Why study China?," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 193-201.
    18. Bratianu Constantin, 2020. "From Thermodynamic Entropy to Knowledge Entropy," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 589-596, July.
    19. Heungsik Park & John Blenkinsopp & Myeongsil Park, 2014. "The Influence of an Observer’s Value Orientation and Personality Type on Attitudes Toward Whistleblowing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 121-129, March.
    20. Scott J. Vitell & Robert Allen King & Jatinder Jit Singh, 2013. "A special emphasis and look at the emotional side of ethical decision-making," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(2), pages 74-85, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:13:y:2019:i:1:p:448-456:n:39. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.