In perspective, the perceptions of a professional are distinct from that of the associated scholar. The scholarship is based mainly on learning whereas professionalism targets solving issues apparent in society. In this light, cases described by authors of the articles reviewed earlier are perceived differently depending on the conscience and occupation of the subject analyzer. This paper discusses these points of view by assessing the practices versus the scholarships oriented perspectives.
Learning from Rare Events
The incidental occurrence of two rare events as presented by Christianson, Farkas, Sutcliffe, and Weick (2009) arouses the stimulation of varying forms from the scholars and practitioners. The ideology behind this argument is that people can learn after making mistakes. Essentially, it is tough to respond to an issue that has never risen as a problem. Architects develop plans to form sustainable construction in consideration of the apparent conditions. This factor implies that architects cannot form rules and arguments against a condition that has not happened. In this regard, the article has become a learning resource for all scholars studying such subjects as weather, engineering, and architecture among others. The article becomes a resource for reference on future studies that make the new professionals in some areas. On the other hand, professionals take the role of defining the causes and possible solutions. If the snow can kill people by destroying walls, then the architects must stop their work, commence research against such a hazardous occurrence, and recommend its implementation. The initial ideas of professionals who have developed the existing weak structures became defective since they do not consider such occurrences. Furthermore, professionals understand that changes are possible happenings that would even cause large weather variations and many deaths. Scholars evaluate when such occurrences of snow can be predictable in the future. Their ultimate goal is to create long-term solutions for the pre-existing issues, which incorporates the development of new ideas and determination of other probable issues. On the other hand, the practitioners provide immediate solutions for the current situation including offering health assistance, developing reliable economic innovation against the problem, and reducing the ambiguity arising from the rare events. In this way, a researcher cannot make an assumption that exempts the occurrence of such hazards.
An Organizational Learning Framework
The study conducted by Crossan, Lane, and White (1999) is educative to the scholar and enlightening to practitioners. It is an experiential strategy that professionals use to plan their work systematically. These researchers argue that learning can be performed through experience in 4 fundamental steps involving intuition, interpretation, integration, and institutionalization. Scholars learn that organizations retain their competitiveness through maintaining their secrecy and ensuring employees or staff do not leave their company for others. In fact, the loss of reliable human resources and company secrets or strategies affects how a business may retain its market. Scholars would point out that the strategy would be maintained through improving working conditions including salaries and promotions. The people working within the subject business organization cannot have a reason to exit the work. This perception is internalized within the learning processes of students. However, professionals apply it as new informative knowledge in the market waiting applications. They participate in testing its validity through being the players in the organizations and approving the validity of the framework. However, the research exempts and assumes that the prevailing frameworks are not working and therefore only their process is viable. There is no explanation about why the prevailing frameworks are not as effective as the proposed strategy. This aspect brings about the confusion of throught to the scholars and challenges to the practitioners.
Learning from Complexity
In this text, Haunschild and Sullivan (2002) hold that variations associated with how firms learn from experiences can be discerned by evaluating the degree to which the entity gains from its past errors. Collaboration and autonomy are other aspects that the firm has considerably exploited to encourage a positive work environment. The company thoroughly screens its employees since it believes in hiring an employee that shares a common vision with the firm. As such, the company seeks talented and motivated workers that show high levels of passion in relation to offering high-customer service. The implication here is that the company places high levels of expectation on the employees that are successful in joining their ranks. The company’s ability to define its expectation and the level the employee has embraced the expectation has established a strong employee-employer bond that has facilitated the smooth relationship between the two sides (Stewart, 2009). Collaboration and autonomy are other aspects that the firm has considerably exploited to encourage a positive work environment. The company thoroughly screens its employees since it believes in hiring an employee that shares a common vision with the firm. As such, the company seeks talented and motivated workers that show high levels of passion in relation to offering high-customer service. The implication here is that the company places high levels of expectation on the employees that are successful in joining their ranks. The company’s ability to define its expectation and the level the employee has embraced the expectation has established a strong employee-employer bond that has facilitated the smooth relationship between the two sides.
Learning from Samples
March, Sproull, and Tamuz (1991) make the assumption that organizations learn from experiences. March and colleagues agree with Christianson et al. (1999) that a firm can learn and benefit even from negative occurrences. However, unlike Christianson et al. (1999), March et al. (1991) argue that entities fail to learn from past incidences at times. However, they can interpret historical occurrences and gain valuable lessons from them. The value of the lessons depends on the accuracy of the interpretation. There are several steps that must be taken in order to solve an ethical dilemma. First, an individual or a firm must determine whether there is an ethical dilemma or not. An ethical dilemma will be magnified by the presence of a conflict of interests, values, rights among others. After the determination, the firm should determine the key values and principles involved.
An ethical dilemma will be magnified by the presence of a conflict of interests, values, rights among others. After the determination, the firm should determine the key values and principles involved.
After values determination, the firm should rank the values and then ethical principles according to the most relevant to the least relevant. This relevancy is based on professional judgment and an individual should have reasons for prioritizing certain issues over others. Forth, the firm should come up with an action plan, that is consistent with the previously determined priorities and which are key and central to the dilemma.
In addition, one should discuss with the other workers about the possible consequences of taking that particular action and be able to justify the action plan. Lastly, the firm or the individual should implement the action plan based on the most appropriate and relevant skills and competencies.
Developing Three Levels of Learning
The authors of the article are of the opinion that crisis management is more beneficial to an organization compared to the adoption of preventive strategies and disaster recovery measures (Simon & Pauchant, 2000). The practice helps the management of an entity to ‘sustain’ change and learning. Firms can use their history (as illustrated by March et al., 1991) to improve their performance. For example, management of the crisis brought about by the collapse of a roof was beneficial to the entity analyzed by Christianson et al. (2009).
According to Simon and Pauchant (2000), different forms of crises require varying management strategies and policies. Three levels of learning have been identified in relation to crisis resolutions. The three are behavioral, paradigmatic, and systemic (Simon & Pauchant, 2000). Simon and Pauchant (2000) used the Hagersville Tire Fire as a case study in the article. Currently, most crisis management strategies follow the principles outlined by Simon and Pauchant (2000). However, the processes are not rigid and are modified to suit the needs of a given firm (Crossan et al., 1999).
Exploring Barriers to Learning
The article seeks to explore how organizations learn from crises. Smith and Elliott (2007) hold the opinion that firms should examine the underlying reasons associated with a given emergency (Smith & Elliott, 2007). Like Simon and Pauchant (2000), Smith and Elliott (2007) hold that a systematic study of a crisis helps the organization to understand its causes. As such, the firm can put in place the necessary collective measures to prevent future occurrences of such a situation (Haunschild & Sullivan, 2002).
Professionals and scholars have distinct ways of thinking depending on the complexity of their thinking. Essentially, scholars can make mistakes when striving to understand, learn and experience. Once they become professionals, making mistakes is classified as part of negligence. This essay has shown these differences in perception and developed their appropriateness. The scholars develop and retain a mood of discovering new ideas and solutions for future use while the practitioners put the prevailing ideas into use.
Christianson, M., Farkas, M., Sutcliffe, K., & Weick, K. (2009). Learning through rare events: Significant interruptions at the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Museum. Organization Science, 20(5), 846-860.
Crossan, M., Lane, H., & White, R. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537.
Haunschild, P., & Sullivan, B. (2002). Learning from complexity: Effects of prior accidents and incidents on airlines learning. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 609-643.
March, J., Sproull, L., & Tamuz, M. (1991). Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2(1), 1-13.
Simon, L., & Pauchant, T. (2000). Developing the three levels of learning in crisis management: A case study of the Hagersville Tire Fire. Review of Business, 21(3/4), 6-11.
Smith, D., & Elliott, D. (2007). Exploring the barriers to learning from crisis: Organizational learning and crisis. Management Learning, 38(5), 519-538.