Running head: ARTICLE REFLECTION 1

Article Reflection

Pamela George

Cornerstone University
Running head: ARTICLE REFLECTION 2

Article Reflection Paper

Part One

What is “ba” relative to theory?

"Ba" provides the space to access knowledge. Knowledge, when validated, informs

theory. Theory can be an idea or an explanation of how things should be. "Ba" provides the

space to connect theory with practice. Marques (2012) claims that there is "a discrepancy

between organizational theory and business practice" (p.24). In essence, there is a gap between

knowledge and application. "Ba" provides the space to discuss the inconsistencies.

Why does “ba” matter?

“Ba” matters because it provides the space to develop knowledge. Nonaka and Konno

(1998) claim “ba” as a collaborative space where knowledge is created (as cited in Kaiser &

Fordinal, 2010). Providing a shared space where collective brainstorming occurs is powerful in

gaining new insights. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi, the conception and implementation

of expertise determine the advancement of an organization (as cited in Kaiser & Fordinal, 2010).

When a space is provided for experts to come together and communicate progress happens. For

businesses to move forward, knowledge needs to be created and applied and “ba” provides the

avenue.

Why are business leaders reluctant to embrace “theory” in their business practices?

Business leaders are unwilling to embrace "theory" in their business practices as it they

perceive it to be irrelevant. Often business leaders are confronted with problems which may

require innovative solutions. According to Peter Vail, a leading theorist in organizational

change, “Business managers continuously perform in highly ambiguous situations while science

likes neither change nor creativity” (as (Marques, 2012, p. 25). In other words, business leaders
ARTICLE REFLECTION 3

may not view theory applicable in the unexpected occurrences of everyday business dealings.

From the leader's perspective, the approach may not necessarily provide them with the solutions

they need. Leaders need to be able to have strategies to think on their feet when faced with

problems.

Part Two: Application

What are the discrepancies between what business education knows and what it
does?

The discrepancies between what business education knows and what it does is

contradictory due to changing times. Business education focuses on educating students on

formalized theories and postulates. Although knowing current theory is informative, it may not

adequately prepare students to think on their feet and come up with solutions to unexpected

problems they may face in reality. Vaill, a leading organizational theorist postulates,

“organizational managers, now more than ever before, deal with high levels of ambiguity that

cannot be solved by theories and sequential steps, as academicians have been developing” (as

cited by Marques, 2012, p. 27). In recent years, change is abrupt, unplanned, and unpredictable

and unless leaders acclimate with the new normal, they will be left behind.

Managers who are learners, adaptable, and alert are better equipped to tackle unexpected

problems. Therefore, academia would be doing a disservice if they don't prepare their students to

think, analyze, and reflect. Marques (2012) quotes Senge et al. (2007), asserting, "until people

do the inner work of learning how to see with their eyes and their heart, deep problems will

persist" (p. 28). In sum, business education needs to equip leaders to apply reflective practices

and flexibility skills. Leaders need space and encouragement to reflect on their intentions so that

they can be flexible to address variable situations that arise.

What are the discrepancies between what business knows and what it does?
ARTICLE REFLECTION 4

What business knows and does may be disconnected as businesses continue to implement

dated practices. Daniel Pink (2009) highlighted this discrepancy in his findings on motivation.

He declared that science proves that rewarding employees is not advantageous when they are

required to perform challenging tasks, yet businesses continue to incentivize employees.

Another outdated practice Pink noted was focusing on attendance as measures of performance

instead of focusing on results. Managers may not be ready to release control or trust their

employees to have intrinsic motivation to accomplish company goals. Admittedly, a company

would thrive when there is an alliance between what science has proven to be accurate, and what

business does.

Why the resistance to adopt theory to fit current circumstances?

There is a resistance to adopt theory to fit current circumstances as it requires change.

According to Marques (2012), most business leaders experience “change aversion” (Marques,

2012, p. 30). In other words, some organizational leaders minimize or are unaware of reality,

thus avoid leaning into the discomfort change requires. Marques (2012) found that “change

aversion, along with self-centeredness, were the two main characteristics leading to

organizational decline” (Marques, 2012, p. 30). Change aversion is innate as it is uncomfortable,

and there is a natural resistance to lose control and move to the unknown. Business leaders

would need to overcome their reluctance to embrace change in the short-term to reap the benefits

change produces in the long term.

Consider the organization you currently work in:

Is leadership aware of organizational theories that govern or guide their business
practices? Support your answer.
Would leadership agree that there is misalignment with organization practices and
current (or evolving) organizational theory? Support your answer.
ARTICLE REFLECTION 5

Leadership may be aware of organizational theories, but implementing them is not

prioritized due to pressures placed by governing bodies. For example, the Teacher Education

department, where I currently work is governed by the Council of Accreditation of Educator

Preparation (CAEP). CAEP imposes standards and holds universities accountable to meet

expected outcomes. The ramifications of being liable to outside agencies have advantages and

challenges. The benefits include high expectations and common objectives to establish universal

standards. On the other hand, it limits faculty to be innovative and apply current theories as they

focus on fitting their curriculum to CAEP's standards. CAEP's standards focus on teachers

meeting Common Core objectives and measure teacher’s effectiveness on student performance

on standardized state assessments. Specifically, current theories don’t reach today’s classrooms.

Furthermore, Schwarz (2016) claims that the leadership of CAEP “threaten graduate

education in curriculum and teaching, as it is built on how-to knowledge that could reduce

graduate education to largely dehumanized, narrow technique” (Schwarz, 2016, p. 41). In other

words, courses that prepare teachers to broaden their knowledge and understanding of student

learning and other applicable theories are not given priority. Liberal arts and Christian

curriculum courses may be the first to be cut. Even though those courses may develop and equip

educators to have a deeper understanding how students learn, they may not fit into CAEP's

standards so they may have to be phased out.

Leadership at Teacher Education feel the pressure to align organization practices and

current organization theory. The stress and expectations placed on leadership to meet CAEP

expectations can overrule and take precedence over best practices. Student course plans are

populated with courses that are required for certification. Students face the pressure to complete

their programs within a certain time frame due to financial restraints so they focus on taking
ARTICLE REFLECTION 6

courses that lead to certification. There is little room to include courses that prepare educators to

understand broader theories that would equip them to be better educators.

Moreover, CAEP has the same expectations for programs servicing large public

universities and small private universities. Larger universities have bigger budgets, staff, and

advanced technology to report and measure how programs meet CAEP's expectations. The

smaller private universities, like the one I work for, offer smaller classrooms and faculty who are

committed to their students thriving. However, faculty in small private universities are stretched

to balance multiple roles. Leadership at my university have the desire to align current practices

with theories, but the challenge to balance expectations and wear multiple hats make

implementation a challenge.
ARTICLE REFLECTION 7

References

Schwarz, G. (2016). CAEP and the decline of curriculum and teaching in an age of techne: I

have seen the enemy and he is us. In D. J. Finders & C. M. Moroye (Eds.), Curriculum

and Teaching Dialogue, pp. 41-54). Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=y61CDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA41&ots=XAdahPLIs6&d

q=organizational%20theories%20of%20CAEP&lr&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kaiser, A., & Fordinal, B. (2010). Creating a ba for generating self-transcending knowledge.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 928-942.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011084943

Marques, J. F. (2012). Marques, J. F. (2012). Where are we going and what are we doing? Two

seemingly opposing views with a unified message about the discrepancy between

organizational behavior theory and business practice. On the Horizon, 20(1), 24-33.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1074812121202044.
Running head: ARTICLE REFLECTION 8

References

Kaiser, A., & Fordinal, B. (2010). Creating a ba for generating self-transcending knowledge.

Journal of Knowledge Management.

Marques, J. F. (2012). Where are we going and what are we doing? Two seemingly opposing

views with a unified message about the discrepancy between organizational behavior

theory and business practice. On the Horizon, 20(1), 24-33.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1074812121202044