Theory Without Practice Is Fantasy But Practice Without Theory Is Blind - Research Paper Example

Indeed, many students find it difficult to relate what they study in school and what they have to do in the real world of corporates. On the one hand, there are academicians who study trends and historical data to come up with solutions to problems in the real world, which can be adopted and used in practice. On the other hand are business executives and their workers who usually criticize academicians for coming up with solutions that are either too ideal, complex, or which have too many assumptions to be applied in real businesses (March 1994). This group approaches problem-solving through past experiences or by applying what is appropriate with the prevailing economic, political, and social conditions. However, the reality of the matter is that none can exist without the other, as summarized by Professor Vincent Ostrom in the above phrase.

One important aspect that organizations’ managers usually deal with is decision-making. Many companies usually operate with the sole reason of making profits. This can only be possible by maximizing revenue while keeping costs down. The management of companies is usually tasked with the duty of making decisions that will lead to the above. However, decision-making is a very complex activity that requires more than just the basic knowledge of how the economic conditions prevail (Scott and Davis, 2007). In addition, wrong decision-making could deal a severe blow to a company which would take years to undo, failure of which the said company would go under. In this sense, decision-making requires the use of theories set out by people who have studied the process in order to be effective. Decision-making is further complicated by the fact that human beings are not always rational; hence they are prone to make decisions that are subjective rather than objective.

One theory put forward to try to explain the decision-making process is one called ‘Bounded Rationality’ put forward by Nobel Price winner, Herbert A. Simon in his paper Administrative Behavior which he wrote in 1947. In this theory, Simon points out that there are several reasons why it may not be easy for executives to make the most rational decision. One reason is due to the uncertainty of the future. Every decision made has a consequence that might be beneficial or harmful to an organization. Some of these consequences can be anticipated, but many more cannot be known at the time of the decision-making. Therefore, managers make what they perceive to be the best decision with the information they have at hand at the period, taking into consideration known risks (Herbert, 1947). Relating to this is the fact that decision-makers cannot fully evaluate the worth of their decisions in the future, but only in the present. The third impediment to rational decision-making is that decision-makers need to be aware of all alternatives to the decision they are about to make (March and Herbert, 1958). This is not always available, making it difficult to choose the most optimal decision. With such theoretical knowledge, decision-makers are in a better position to understand the decision-making process, hence being in a better position to defend their actions.

Another illustration of Professor Vincent Ostrom’s phrase is applicable in the normal operations of a company. Companies usually spend large sums of money to train their employees and managers to deal with the dynamism that is usually experienced in the corporate world.  However, how often does the training yield success by the trained applying what they have learned (Jones, 1994)? Most of the time, it is not easy to apply directly what has been taught to practical problems in the workplace. This scenario, where trainees find it difficult to apply what has been taught in reality was termed the ‘Knowing-Doing gap’ by Jeffrey & Robert (2000) Sutton in a paper by the same name. They deduced that it was more important for trained people to apply what has been taught to them, rather than applying solutions that have neither been tested nor approved. The scholars recognize the fact that managers and companies in general usually find it difficult to apply new ideas, preferring instead to stick to the traditional methods that they are used to. Unfortunately, traditional methods are usually rigid and formal and not always the best. Pfeffer and Sutton suggest that organizations, rather than opposing change, should try to gradually adopt new methods, rather than object to them outright or overhaul their systems all at once.

In conclusion, it is more beneficial for both companies and academic institutions to work together to come up with solutions to workplace problems (Herbert and Associates, 1986). On the one hand, academicians will have platforms to check whether their theories and models work, and organizations will benefit from getting new models that could improve their bottom lines and increase their profits. Furthermore, this will reduce animosity that exists between business people and academicians since both always think they are right and the other party is wrong. Together, they can bring theory and practice to their respective workplaces.