Theory vs. Practice in Small Business Management

Introduction

When working in any organization or corporation, one of the most apparent tensions that emerges is the relationship between theory and what is actually practiced in a small business setting. To properly examine that paradigm, the author of this report interviewed an owner/manager of a small business to discuss what they do to make things work, what is suggested in theory and scholarly literature, and how those frameworks and lessons do or do not apply to their particular situation. The author will draw a comparison between what is asserted in the literature and the feedback and personal experience narrative of the owner/manager.

A common refrain seen in the blogosphere and elsewhere is that there is a disconnect between what is suggested by theorists and within the so-called ivory towers of academia and political think tanks. There is perhaps some truth to that common observation, but there surely has to be some fire to accompany the smoke — that is, the innovation and ideas that come out of academia. After all, not everyone in the academic and scholarly sphere is an insulated theorist with no real-world exposure. While the applicability of theory to real-world practice might be hit or miss in some instances, the interview with the owner/manager that is the subject of this report clearly shows that academic research sometimes gets it completely right.

Analysis of Experience

The author of this report sat down with the owner/manager of a business that has about two dozen employees. The central focus of the analysis — as reflected by both the author and the owner/manager — is a small team of four people who collectively share approximately six total tasks. An idea arose, both from the manager himself and the team, that it might be more efficient to consolidate some tasks to two members of the team and the remaining tasks to the other two. About half of the tasks were client-contact-related, while the others were mainly internal in nature. The general idea was to keep each half of the team as homogenous as possible in terms of the jobs they performed, so as to reduce the number of differing tasks and the degree of multitasking involved.

This approach has clear roots in the scholarly literature. A number of sources suggest that multitasking is simply another way of saying that one is doing more tasks without properly excelling at any of them — in other words, completing one task fully is always going to be better than juggling two or more simultaneously (Weightman et al., 2017). There is also a perceived benefit, recognized by many scholars, in limiting the overall number of tasks a person handles — that is, consolidating like tasks as much as possible to reduce variability and keep people more productive (Camden, Nickels, Fendley & Phillips, 2017). Separating people-based tasks from non-people-based tasks also tends to limit interruptions for those doing internal work (Szumowska & Kossowska, 2017).

The manager explains that the consolidation of tasks did show some promise and at first seemed to coincide fairly well with what theorists had suggested. However, some adjustments proved necessary, as certain interruptions were simply unavoidable. There will always be the urgent email that comes through, and the demands of clients do not always align neatly with what theory would predict. Even if some people question this, many in the scholarly sphere argue that the loss of performance associated with multitasking occurs at the neurological level and is not merely perceived or anecdotal (Al-Hashimi, Zanto & Gazzaley, 2015).

Despite the speed bumps encountered in translating research on multitasking into practice, there remained an internal perception that variability of tasks and the frequency of interruptions led to decreased performance. The team then tested this perception by reviewing prior performance metrics — such as service level agreement compliance and quality of work — and comparing them to results after the changes were implemented. As noted, there were some difficulties along the way, but these were resolved through testing and experimentation. Generally, the theory proved solid and sound, but adapting it to the particular situation required diligence and adjustment. This is to be expected: no general or one-size-fits-all approach will work without at least some customization. A key part of making things work is asking the hard questions, working through the details, and ensuring that ownership and management are willing to let results emerge naturally rather than forcing an outcome that is not going to work.

Conclusion

In the end, the owner/manager interviewed for this report is quite singular and deliberate in his approach. He says that his business model was clearly by design, and he would rather be the primary person operating the company. He is aware that the business would likely cease to exist if he were to pass away or become disabled, but he is at peace with that and is not currently concerned with building a legacy to pass on. In many ways, he breaks the mold described in much of the literature. In other ways, however, he confirms a great many of the stories and frameworks that scholars have put forward about small business management.

References

Al-Hashimi, O., Zanto, T., & Gazzaley, A. (2015). Neural sources of performance decline during continuous multitasking. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 71, 49–57.

Bos-Brouwers, H. J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business Strategy & The Environment, 19(7), 417–435.

Brady, K., & Lowell, W. (2014). Theory vs. practice: A study of business consultants and their utilization of corporate culture in daily practice. Journal of Practical Consulting, 5(1), 1–22.

Brook, C., & Milner, C. (2014). Reflections on 'creative' action learning in business education: Some issues in its theory and practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(2), 126–137.

Camden, A., Nickels, M., Fendley, M., & Phillips, C. (2017). A case for information theory-based modelling of human multitasking performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 18(3), 266–278.

Devins, D., & Jones, B. (2016). Strategy for succession in family owned small businesses as a wicked problem to be tamed. Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review, 47(11), 4–15.

Fernandes, N., Land, M., & Carmo-Silva, S. (2016). Aligning workload control theory and practice: Lot splitting and operation overlapping issues. International Journal of Production Research, 54(10), 2965–2975.

Ford, D., & Mouzas, S. (2013). The theory and practice of business networking. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 433–442.

Ghezal, S. (2015). Assessing the validity of a small business strategy instrument using confirmatory factor analysis. International Journal of the Academic Business World, 9(1), 79–87.

Grant, P., Arjoon, S., & McGhee, P. (2017). Reconciling ethical theory and practice: Toward developing a business ethics pedagogical model. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 36(1), 41–65.

Grigorios, Z., & Alistair R., A. (2004). Relationships, marketing and small business: An exploration of links in theory and practice. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 7(3), 228–236.

Harrison, D., Mykytyn, P., Jr., & Riemenschneider, C. (1997). Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171.

Lowe, S., Rod, M., Kainzbauer, A., & Hwang, K. (2016). Exploring the perceived value of social practice theories for business-to-business marketing managers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(5), 751–768.

Mortell, M., Balkhy, H., Tannous, E., & Jong, M. (2013). Physician 'defiance' towards hand hygiene compliance: Is there a theory-practice-ethics gap? Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 25(3), 203–208.

Phillips, P. D. (1996). Business retention and expansion: Theory and an example in practice. Economic Development Review, 14(3), 19.

Pullins, E., Timonen, H., Kaski, T., & Holopainen, M. (2017). An investigation of the theory-practice gap in professional sales. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 25(1), 17–38.

Radovic, R. (2013). Business challenges and design: Theory and practice in the furniture industry in the Republic of Croatia. Business Systems Research, 4(2), 79–93.

Ramsay, I. (2015). Increased corporate governance powers of shareholders and regulators and the role of the corporate regulator in enforcing duties owed by corporate directors and managers. European Business Law Review, 26(1), 49–73.

Rizzo, A., & Fulford, H. (2012). Understanding small business strategy: A grounded theory study on small firms in the E.U. State of Malta. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(3), 287–332.

Sepe, S. M. (2017). Board and shareholder power, revisited. Minnesota Law Review, 101(4), 1377–1455.

Smart, P., Maddern, H., & Maull, R. (2009). Understanding business process management: Implications for theory and practice. British Journal of Management, 20(4), 491–507.

Szumowska, E., & Kossowska, M. (2017). Motivational rigidity enhances multitasking performance: The role of handling interruptions. Personality & Individual Differences, 106, 81–89.

Visser, C. (1995). Theory and practice: A defense of small business language strategies. European Business Journal, 7(2), 49.

Weightman, M., McCulloch, K., Radomski, M., Finkelstein, M., Cecchini, A., Davidson, L., Heaton, K., Smith, L., & Scherer, M. (2017). Further development of the assessment of military multitasking performance: Iterative reliability testing. PLOS ONE, 12(1), 1–19.

Zachary, M. (2014). U.S. employment law and small business management — Illustrative theory and cases. Global Business & Economics Anthology, 2, 127–137.