It is hardly news that many organizations do not implement practices that research has shown to be positively associated with employee productivity and firm financial performance (e.g., Hambrick, 1994; Johns, 1993; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Indeed, the failure to implement research-supported prac-tices has been observed in nearly every field where there is a separation between those who conduct research and those who are in a position to imple-ment research findings (Lewis, 2003; Rogers, 1995; Straus, Richardson, Glasziou, & Haynes, 2005). The gap between science and practice is so per-sistent and pervasive that some have despaired of its ever being narrowed. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, attempts to deal with the problem have evolved in the form of movements toward "evidence-based" practice in such fields as medi-cine, education, marketing, rehabilitation, and psy-chology (APA Task Force, 2006; Ford, 2005; Law, 2002; Southworth & Conner, 1999; Straus et al., 2005). In the field of management, the nascent move-ment toward evidence-based practice is known as "evidence-based management," or EBM. According to Rousseau, "Evidence-based management means translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices. Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into ex-perts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research–part of the zeitgeist moving professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experi-ence toward those based on the best available sci-entific evidence" (2006: 256). For evidence-based management (EBM) to take root, it is necessary—though far from sufficient— that managers be exposed to, and embrace, scien-tific evidence. Although this point may seem obvi-ous, it is hardly trivial. For example, unlike medicine, education, or law, management is not truly a profession (Leicht & Fennell, 2001; Trank & Rynes, 2003). As such, there is no requirement that managers be exposed to scientific knowledge about management, that they pass examinations in order to become licensed to practice, or that they pursue continuing education in order to be allowed to maintain their practice. Furthermore, since the first choice of most managers seeking information is to consult other managers (e.g., Brown & Duguid, 2002; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) and since extremely few managers read academic pub-lications (Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002), the ques-tion of how to inform managers about scientific evidence is anything but trivial. One way in which aspiring managers can learn about management-related evidence is through for-mal education. However, even the acquisition of a formal master's or bachelor's degree in business is no guarantee that a student has learned evidence-based principles. This is because many textbooks do not cover research findings, and many individ-uals teaching in business schools do not have Ph.D.'s and are unlikely to know about scientific evidence in their field of instruction (Trank & Rynes, 2003). Furthermore, there are millions of managers who do not hold formal degrees in man-agement. How might these managers receive infor-mation that is consistent with the best available scientific evidence about how various management practices influence business outcomes? One possible way is through periodicals aimed at practitioners, either in specialty areas or in general management. For example, in the area of human resource (HR) management, Rynes, Colbert, and Brown (2002) found that by far the most widely read periodical is HR Magazine, which is pub-lished by HR's major professional association, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and has a circulation of more than 200,000.