I do not think that in real-life , we can afford to have  a choice between Pro-active and Reactive  approach, in all situations.  Pro-active approach is generally more effective in terms of avoiding /reducing loss of  life.property etc. however, it depends on the situation, time available to take action and resource availability. I have seen that even in the case of worst natural disasters like cyclones , pro-active approach by civic authorities ,on the basis of limited scientific forecast inputs available, helped in averting major damages. However, if there is a sudden accident, we have no other choice but to react on the spot. In some situations, like disasters ( man-made or natural) , a combination of pro-active and reactive approaches can  be more effcetive. At times, pro-active approach may not work at all, as anticipation or scientific forecasts did not  turn out to be correct .    

I think the old adage that prevention is better than cure is applicable here. Sometimes it costs more to repair the damage after it has been done, so I think it is better to be proactive, especially in Health Care as our bodies do not come with spares. The latter can be achieved by having ongoing health awareness programs on prevention of diseases as well as monitoring of such programs for their impact. Being an educational technologist, I might be tempted to "jump at" the next new app and mobile device (e.g. see wearable technology in attached) but I need to be aware of the health risks involved before doing so as the damage caused by radiation from such devices can be irreversible.

Best regards,

Debra

Data Flexible Learning Environments-Theories-Trends-Issues

Dear RG Member,

I think proactive approach is good for other.

Proactive versus reactive approach equal prevention better than treatment.

Proactive approach is certainly better than reactive approach. You would agree that fire prevention is better than fire fighting. It is a known fact that, a spark neglected burns the house.

In crisis management approach, proactive management can be implemented by recognizing a crisis situation and then preparing contingency planning.

To recognize a crisis situation, one should first identify the level of risk  and its impact on people and/or finance. A risk is considered 'severe' when the impact is high i.e. loss of life/injuries and also when the impact on finance is 'extraordinary'.

Please refer to Akov theory concerning planning approches to get better 

understanding and view of the issue.

  Of course we need prevention (proactive)--However this can be broken down.  primary prevention--doing something before illness such as vaccinations, good health behaviors, safety measure.  Secondary prevention or early diagnosis such as cancer and TB screening and finally tertiary prevention, helping people not to become worse such as exercise for arthritis, lowering carbs for people with diabetes etc.   While we would love to prevent all disease, today this is not possible.  In fact prevention has other consequences.  Maternal and Child Health has improved greatly in the past 50 years and with it longer life expectancy and the rise of chronic conditions.  Many cancers are cured  or life prolonged by early screening followed by treatment. Today chronic condition are the number one cost of health care in most of our countries.   So while we must maintain primary prevention and secondary prevention we must also place a new focus on tertiary prevention especially for our aging population.

Kate raises an interesting point... As a Nurse I always practiced all three levels of Prevention.... Primary Prevention depending on the audience & setting, hospital, school or workplace.... Secondary if the individaul always was exhibiting some concerning symptoms... and then Tertiary was usually full blown treatment ( reactive)... but I do think Kate raises a good point in terms of the elderly who frequently have some form of illness yet could also benefit from some preventative measures either to prolong life or provide comfort to them & their families.... nice discussion!

I think proactive approaches are  better than reactive approaches .

Pressing problems which require urgent action today are the direct result of a lack of anticipation in the past, and often draw resources away from more important tasks like long-term organizational development. In a world constantly changing whose trends are prone to quick redirections or even reversals, an increased effort in foresight (specifically in the domains of technology, economics, and society) is crucial for a company aspiring to have a flexible strategy (the ability to react nimbly to the forces of change and stay the course). In order to master change, organizations must correctly anticipate shifts in technological, competitive, and regulatory environments, and then do so neither too early nor too late.

Humanity has the choice among four attitudes when faced with the future. There is (1) the passive actor, who accepts change without challenging it; (2) the reactive actor, who waits for the alarm to sound before extinguishing the fire; (3) the pre-active actor, who prepares for foreseeable changes because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; and (4) the pro-active actor, who acts to provoke desirable change. 

In the context of a crisis, reactivity trumps the other attitudes. Likewise in the context of growth, pro-activity is the most important attitude, notably by way of provoking change through innovation. Prospective, which is anticipation in the service of action, is necessarily the combination of all three attitudes.

RE: A proactive approach focuses on eliminating problems before they have a chance to appear

I do not think it is possible to eliminate a problem before it appears. Proactiveness, as I understand it,  is an early take up of a problem with sustained action to solve it.

Maybe you meant Prevention? And that is a different approach. It is taking measures so that potential problems do not become actualized.

The situation is different depending on who needs to take the decision. It is not the same for an individual doctor in front of a specific patient (need to take into consideration gender, age , health condition etc. of him/her to prevent all possible side effects of a treatment as well as to detect and manage as soon as possible if they appear) or the health authority or organization of a country, or similar, who is also obliged to take into consideration the probability of all side effects of a treatment in a global population as well as many other factors (as could be the inconvenient of not  doing it,  even the cost of general measures for a huge number of people).

As your question is written in this forum I suppose it is for the first of these two situations. Then I believe that proactive idea could be good even though nobody could be sure of what will happen and an excessive proactive attitude in some cases could have contrary results than desired.

In any case I agree with the interesting comments of our colleagues Drs. Durance and Park. Prevention is certainly a more exact term to define which the rational attitude must be.

Proactive action is action taken to solve a problem before it occurs. if a problem is envisaged action can be taken to eliminate the problem. This will save the management of embarrassment. on the other hand, a reactive action is action taken after the event has occurred.  Much more damage might have been done if action is taken after the occurrence of the problem. therefore, proactive is better than reactive. Prevention is better than cure.

The case for been proactive ahead been reactive is fact dependent, however, in a plant operation, the need for planned maintenance of plant equipment and machinery (Proactive) and its gain have been established. So I would go for a proactive approach to addressing the issue in my plant operation. The need for the reactive approach is accommodated in the just in time (JIT) approach for expensive plant equipment that cannot be stocked or planned for.

Edward Agbai

I do not think that in real-life , we can afford to have  a choice between Pro-active and Reactive  approach, in all situations.  Pro-active approach is generally more effective in terms of avoiding /reducing loss of  life.property etc. however, it depends on the situation, time available to take action and resource availability. I have seen that even in the case of worst natural disasters like cyclones , pro-active approach by civic authorities ,on the basis of limited scientific forecast inputs available, helped in averting major damages. However, if there is a sudden accident, we have no other choice but to react on the spot. In some situations, like disasters ( man-made or natural) , a combination of pro-active and reactive approaches can  be more effcetive. At times, pro-active approach may not work at all, as anticipation or scientific forecasts did not  turn out to be correct .    

I fully agree with the commentary of our colleague Sunday Alayemi, The problem is that we are evaluating a term difficult to use in Medicine.  Before an infectious disease the patient is, at least apparently, healthy (free of that disease if not in the incubation period). When we establish a health certificate (needed for some insurances, contract of employment etc.) we merely mention he/she is “apparently in good condition” (even after a full medical examination). Since we can’t predict all hidden health problems that later could emerge, even in a short time. This is why in Medicine the most suitable word is not proactive but prevention (for those that some call “proactive measures”). At the present time it is common to utilize words that are appropriate for some fields but less precise for others. Consequently, as has been written by our colleague Jae Park, in Medicine prevention is a more appropriate term than proactive. 

Proactivity means a " What If " approach. 

Problem can occur any time but proactive people already have calculated and prepared solutions.

Proactive approach calls in solving the problem before it occurs. Instead of waiting for sick patients to come knocking on your door, you need to figure out what they need, when they need it, and how to get it for them (proactive approach). For example, clinical research has shown a reduction in risk of developing diabetes of over 50% following relatively modest changes in lifestyle that include adopting a healthy diet, increasing physical activity, and maintaining a healthy body weight. However, 80 percent of the world’s diabetic population lives in countries where only 20 percent of the global budget for healthcare is spent. In that case, patients realize to have diabetes when they feel symptoms of blindness, lower limb amputations, kidney failure, heart attacks and stroke. They attend in the health centre for treatment (reactive approach). Similar scenarios can happen in marketing, politics and natural calamities like earthquakes, fire and floods. In real life, it is very difficult to proactively act on some issues because we can’t predict exactly what will happen in the future. In spite of all these, proactive is the best approach.

Proactive versus reactive approach. which is better?

Think proactive approach is better because it is always step(s) ahead of reactive approach whereby benefits can be yielded earlier, resulting in lower risk & lower cost etc.  E.g. an initial small problem can be proactively addressed with minimal impact & cost vs when the problem becomes too great to be reactively addressed with greater negative impacts or higher costs.

Dear Satyaprasad,

The answer depends upon how you interpret better. Whilst we would all like to predict and avoid negative issues in decision-making it does not necessarily advance learning.  I was enlightened on this matter through reading two of Henri Petroski's books: To Engineer is Human (the Role of Failure in Successful Design) and Success Through Failure the Paradox of Design.  Both books an enjoyable read and might help your reflection and deliberations on this issue.

I personally believe proactive approach requires well understanding of subject and its application whereas reactive approach impose due to grave circumstances. So, for instant (short term) results reactive is good whereas for long term results proactive approach will reap better results.

I am primarily talking in context of environment. May be suitable at every place.

"Philippe Durance ·In context of crisis also proactive is trumps because as you told rightly that it is action for better future with anticipation for service. Not just reacting helps out of crisis that also when it has' occurred'."

As for proactive approach in healthcare, excercise is a clue for you. Ok, alcohol avoidance is also a proactive approach whereas having the bed ready with all equipments is pre-active.

In choosing approaches I suggest we consider the actor. Individuals have personal affinities leaning in one of these preparation/action styles, so the "best" choice in a context may be for the person to act on their own strength. If a system or organization identifies a role as proactive-positive, then a person with that propensity is best suited to control it, whereas JIT ready and inclined people are better suited in roles requiring immediacy, especially when considering all present factors is important. My point is that the "best choice" is having the correct match of person to situational demand (i.e. of JIT vs AOT vs pre-active (RBN right before needed).

For any approach to be successful, four factors: attitude, resources, skill and motivation are important. In my previous generilistic answer I said that proactive approach was better. But, the approach is required to be based on situations, the correct predictions are sometimes difficult. Even after several precautions, an emergency may arise, where reactive response is essential. In health care, it is often said that prevention is better than cure. But in case of unknown ailments, the approach is essentially reactive. Therefore, there should be prudent mix of proactive and reactive approach for management.

You rightly mentioned the factors that make a difference in implementing any approach. Often people get carried away with the proactive approach; neglecting these factors and not taking resource (as a constraint) into consideration.