MGMT 8920M Week 2 Search Strategy Example

Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This MGMT 8920M Week 2 search strategy example documents the literature search for a review of knowledge hiding, employees deliberately withholding knowledge a colleague has asked for, in consulting, law, accounting and engineering firms. Three tables do most of the work: five databases with the date and reason for each, search terms arranged in construct, setting and design facets, and five numbered exclusion rules with reasons, such as setting aside classroom studies. A closing tally sorts the 34 retained studies by design and finds 27 cross-sectional surveys. Walden MGMT 8920M, Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design, asks PhD in Management students to make a search repeatable, and the sample cites Connelly and colleagues, Černe and colleagues, Tranfield and colleagues, and Snyder.

CourseMGMT 8920M Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design
WeekWeek 2
Paper typeSearch strategy
LengthAbout 540 words, 4 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolWalden University
ProgramPhD in Management
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for MGMT 8920M Week 2

1

Three Tables and a Tally: A Search Strategy for a Literature Review on Knowledge Hiding in Professional Service Firms, Recording Databases and Dates, Search Terms in Three Facets and Numbered Exclusion Rules, and Showing That Cross-Sectional Surveys Dominate What Was Retained

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8920M: Developing the Content Literature Review and Research Method and Design

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title lists the strategy's parts and states the finding its closing tally produces.
2

Three Tables and a Tally: A Search Strategy for a Literature Review on Knowledge Hiding in Professional Service Firms, Recording Databases and Dates, Search Terms in Three Facets and Numbered Exclusion Rules, and Showing That Cross-Sectional Surveys Dominate What Was Retained

Purpose of the Strategy

The review examines knowledge hiding, an employee's intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge a colleague has requested, in professional service firms such as consulting, law, accounting and engineering practices. Connelly et al. (2012) introduced the construct and distinguished it from simply failing to share. The strategy below records how the literature was searched so that another researcher could repeat it and reach the same studies. Tranfield et al. (2003) argued that management reviews gain credibility when their search and selection are transparent and replicable, which is the standard these tables aim to meet.

What this page is doingThe strategy states its purpose in a few lines, so a reader can judge whether the tables would let someone else repeat the search.
3

Databases Searched

Table 1

Databases, Dates and Reasons for Inclusion

DatabaseDate searchedReason included
Business Source CompleteJanuary 12, 2026Broad coverage of management and organization journals
PsycINFOJanuary 13, 2026Knowledge hiding grew out of organizational behavior and psychology research
Web of Science Core CollectionJanuary 14, 2026Citation tracking forward from Connelly et al. (2012)
ABI/INFORM GlobalJanuary 15, 2026Professional practice journals and dissertations
Google Scholar, first 200 resultsJanuary 16, 2026Check for studies the indexed databases missed

Each search was saved with its exact string and result count.

Search Terms in Three Facets

Table 2

Search Facets

FacetTerms combined with OR
Constructknowledge hiding; knowledge withholding; evasive hiding; rationalized hiding; playing dumb; knowledge hoarding
Settingprofessional service firm; consulting; law firm; legal; accounting firm; audit; engineering firm
Designlongitudinal; diary; experiment; experimental; interview; case study; survey

Facets were combined with AND. The design facet was used in a second pass to sort, not to exclude, so that no study was lost for lacking a design term in its abstract.

Exclusion Rules

1. Studies set in classrooms or training programs were excluded, because professional firms reward expertise in ways that make hiding a different decision from hiding in a course.

2. Studies of knowledge sharing that did not measure hiding separately were excluded, because Connelly et al. (2012) showed the two are distinct constructs.

3. Non-empirical commentaries were excluded from the evidence base but kept for background.

4. Studies in languages other than English were excluded, a limit the review states.

5. Studies of professional firms combined with other sectors were retained only if results for professional firms were reported separately.

What this page is doingEach exclusion is numbered and given its reason, which is what makes the selection repeatable rather than a matter of taste.
4

Closing Tally

After screening, 34 studies were retained. Sorted by design, 27 are cross-sectional surveys, including several with time-separated measures at two points a few weeks apart; 3 are experiments or scenario studies; 3 use interviews or case studies; and 1 follows employees with repeated measures over several months. Černe et al. (2014), whose field study showed that hiding knowledge can reduce the hider's own creativity by prompting coworkers to stop sharing, is among the few that trace hiding to later consequences for the hider. Snyder (2019) notes that a review's method should fit its purpose; here the tally itself is a finding, since a literature dominated by single-occasion surveys can say much about who hides knowledge and little about how hiding develops over time.

References

Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64-88. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737

Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G. L., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172-192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0122

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

What the MGMT 8920M Week 2 instructions ask for

For Week 2, document your literature search so that another researcher could repeat it. Build three tables. The first lists each database searched, the date and the reason it was included. The second arranges your search terms in facets, such as construct, setting and design, with synonyms combined in each. The third lists your exclusion rules, numbered, each with its reason. Close with a tally that sorts the retained studies by design and say what the tally shows about the literature. Cite a source on systematic or structured reviewing to support your approach. The strategy should run about four pages, most of it tables, and should state any limits, such as language or date range, as rules rather than leaving them implicit.

How this MGMT 8920M Week 2 example is built

The knowledge hiding strategy opens with the construct's definition from Connelly and colleagues and Tranfield and colleagues' standard of transparent, replicable search. The database table lists four indexes and a capped Google Scholar check, with PsycINFO included because the construct came from organizational behavior. The facet table combines construct, setting and design terms, using the design facet to sort rather than exclude. Five numbered rules follow, from classroom studies to mixed-sector samples. The tally reports 27 surveys, 3 experiments, 3 interview or case studies and 1 repeated-measures study, mentions Černe and colleagues' finding about the hider's own creativity, and closes with Snyder on fitting a review's method to its purpose.

Where the marks sit in the MGMT 8920M Week 2 rubric

The strategy is judged on whether another researcher could repeat it and get the same set of studies. Databases need dates and reasons; terms need to be organized and complete; exclusion rules need numbers and reasons. Graders give substantial weight to rules that are justified by the review's question rather than by convenience. The closing tally earns credit when it is treated as a finding about the literature, not just a count. Stating limits, such as language, as explicit rules shows rigor. Strategies that list databases without dates, combine terms without facets, exclude studies without stated reasons or end without a tally fall into the middle band, as do strategies that cite review guidance without following it.

MGMT 8920M Week 2 help from the desk

Save every search string and its result count as you go; reconstructing them later is hard. Choose databases by asking where your construct's research is published, not only where your field publishes. Brainstorm synonyms for your construct with a librarian or from the keywords of key articles. Write exclusion rules before screening, then apply them consistently, and record any new rule you add with its reason. When you tally retained studies by design, look for imbalance; it often points toward your gap. Keep the narrative short and let the tables carry the detail. A tutor can help you build facets that catch synonyms, and the knowledge hiding strategy on this page shows all three tables.

Get a MGMT 8920M Week 2 example written to your instructions

Send your review question, the databases available to you and the Week 2 prompt with its rubric. A search strategy on a comparable construct, with a design facet, reasoned exclusions and a tally of designs, comes back within 24-48h at no cost for the first. Its terms were built for that construct; your own log has to record searches you ran.

Request this week free All MGMT 8920M weeks Finished samples

More MGMT 8920M papers and PhD in Management samples

MGMT 8920M Week 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free MGMT 8920M Week 2 sample paper?

The knowledge hiding search strategy, three tables and tally, is printed on this page.

What are the three facets in the MGMT 8920M Week 2 sample?

Construct, setting and design, each with synonyms combined by OR.

Why are classroom studies excluded?

Because professional firms reward expertise differently, so hiding there is a different decision.

What does the closing tally show?

Cross-sectional surveys dominate, with only one study following employees over time.

What is knowledge hiding?

An employee's intentional attempt to withhold or conceal knowledge a colleague has requested.