Last week we held the final preview session for our Minnesota Executive Program (MEP), and something that one of our faculty said stuck with me. It was in response to a question about how past participants had applied what they learned in the program to their jobs. The question was initially fielded by two past participants who attended the preview–one from Lund Foods, and one from Hormel. They each explained how the program has been valuable to them, and provided examples. But then, Norm Chervaney, one of our faculty who has been teaching in the MEP program for over 20 years made an interesting point. He suggested that people sometimes approach university-based executive education assuming what turns out to be a false dichotomy: “theory” versus “practice.”
His point was simply this: “Would you want to have a surgeon operate on you who did not have a deep understanding of physiology?” I know I would want my surgeon to have both a theoretical or conceptual understanding of body systems, and a lot of experience actually doing the surgery.
So, why is it that so often “theory” is used as a dirty word. As in, “that is just a bunch of theory,” or “that is too theoretical.” Yet, one never hears anyone saying, “that’s just based on experience,” or “that is just too practical.”
But, perhaps they should.
In the best sense of the word, “theories” simply help you to make sense of complex situations by helping you to understand the pricniples or elements that are in play. We create and test theories–though we don’t call them that–all the time. Any time you use your prior experience to guide your actions in a new situation you are doing so because you have created an implicit theory about how things work and you believe that your theory will apply to the new situation. Of course, the only evidence to support your theory is your own experience.
In contrast, well done research leverages the experience of others in similar situations and distills down the essential lessons. In addition, since theories in the academic world are more formal, they must stand up to intense scrutiny, and can be tested with enormous amounts of data and well-designed experiments. I don’t actually know any reputable academic who deals in the type of theory that some think of when they think of academic theory–the armchair theorizing that is disconnected from the real world. I think the last great armchair theorist was William James, and he died in 1910. However, I do know of plenty of consultants who sell themselves as experts based on their experience, yet lack even a basic theoretical foundation for their work. For example, many executive coaches operating today do coaching that crosses the line into therapy…and don’t even realize it because they lack sufficient knowledge of psychology.
Good executive education recognizes the importance of practical experience and theoretical knowledge and presents a blend of ”theory” and “practice.”
Filed under: Defining Executive Education, Executive Education, Uncategorized
The problem with Theory is, it takes a huge leap of faith for some people (like me) to accept theory as a substitute for Experience. Anyone with an undergraduate or graduate degree–even at a Top 10 program–had at least one professor who spent their entire life in the classroom, and never actually did what they were teaching others to do. In the real business world Theory is helpful at times, but is ultimately a poor substitute for Practice when given a choice between the two.
Thanks for the comment, Eric. I agree with you that theory is no substitute for experience. My point was simply that it should not be an either–or … We should acknowledge the importance of both theoretical and experiential foundations. You correctly note that most people can recall a professor somewhere along the way who did not have any experience base to draw from. While there can be role for this type of pure theory, it must be carefully placed within a curriculum that balances it with the practical as well.
Having worked as a consultant fir many years, I got more used to seeing people lacking a foundation for what they did. That can actually make them dangerous, as I allude to in my post about “coaches” practicing psychology…
Mark
we could say then that theory build by experince and it is only approved statment of examined experince
What do you say about the e-learning programs that lack in practical component? Companies are spending a significant percentage of their total expenditure on e-learning for their employees. Do you think e-learning while on one side ensures the documentatory proof of a company’s employees, it actually lacks the practical aspect? I just want to know the rate of success of online training programs. I mean if you read the techniques of ‘how to swim’online, can you be called as trained swimmer without stepping into a swimming pool?
I have observed that it is common to reject theory in companies. What I see is that people leading companies believe that theoretical argues are a waste of time. Sometime I hear that someone fall on paralysis by analysis. From my point of view, the root of the problem (and here is my theory), is the kind of knowledge you manage in companies. Unlike universities, the knowledge managed in companies is a kind of “Know how to” while in universities is a “Know what to”. And my hypothesis is that leader that manage a good balance between know how and know what, make it better for one simple reason: they build sense to the action, they know why they are doing what they do, they can explain and communicate reason, they relate their proposals with the net of the organization, they are not acting like automats.
Unfortunately, the most common is doing by doing which, I guess, makes companies to loose a lot of money. There is just one suggestion to overcome this: teach people to think, show them that they are not wasting time while thinking and let them find out how revenues increase when thinking takes part of their time.
I just want to finish with a reflection on e-learning programs. It is truth that most of them lack the practical component, it is also truth that this is bad e-learning. THere are a lot of e-learning courses including huge space for application where learners get used to the new skill and consequently improve their practice. These usually are more expensive programs.