Jump to content

Talk:Management/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Types of management?

As this article focuses primarily on business management, I find it odd that Pain management and Stress management are listed. Stress management, while important in the business world, seems to apply more to an individual managing his/her own stress, instead of a dedicated manager managing a group's stress. Pain management is purely a medical concept (unless, of course, we're talking strictly about the business of medicine.) --Elkman 20:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan

I want Kevin Ryan somewhere in the article, where is appropriate? --Striver 00:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

How is Kevin Ryan relevant to an article about Management?

Thank you for such a comprehensive cover of the functions of a manger. One thing though, Is it necessary for a company manager to be proficient in all these functions?

Etymology

The site etymonline.com doesn't propose the same origin of the word. According to it, management comes from manage which could come from the French word manège that means "horsemanship" 16@r 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC). So does anybody know any more about it ? 16@r 00:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any article on Poverty of Technology or Poverty of Management on Wikipedia?

Is there any article on Poverty of Technology or Poverty of Management on Wikipedia? vkvora 18:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lists redundant with categorization

Instead of having a See also section and referring readers to lists, can we simply refer readers to the category:management and concentrate on making sure the subcategories are comprehensive and well-organized? --SueHay 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but pending the emergence of a comprehensive and well-organized system of sub-categories, we can restore the valuable but deleted list of "Areas of management" (reproduced below), which succinctly references and demonstrates the pervasiveness of management concepts and terminology. -- Pedant17 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
== Areas of management ==
This list mixes the division of responsibility that naturally occurs within organizations with various tactics for fulfilling those responsibilities -- or any other responsibility. --SueHay 02:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the mixing of tactics with other (trivial) stuff as a heinous crime, but a re-organisation into sub-groupings might address your concerns. -- Pedant17 08:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Business Administration vs. Management

I was redirected to Management from Business Administration. I was under the impression that Business Administration deals with the functions of the business: marketing, finance, human resources, operations, etc., and Management deals with managing people and organizations. Shouldn't there be a distinction? Management may be a function of a business, just like marketing.

I don't think very many people make the distinction between management and administration any more. Business processes and functions have become too interconnected. It has become a reengineered world. mydogategodshat 04:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a distinction and no, the distinctions mentioned are not it. "Business Administration is exactly the same thing as Business Management. Administration and Management are synonyms. They mean exactly the same thing. That is where the confusion of what "Management" means and where the title to this article, I find questionable. The article is called "Management" but it should be called "Business Management" or "Business Administration". Management deals with a lot more than just business while the article (with the exception of a few links for stress management, pain management and the like) is dealing with business specifically, not necessarily management. The distinction is that the word management or administration deals with a lot more than just business. Business Administration is not "Management" but "Business Management".Rlopez1605 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from 'management system'

It seems to me that our Management system article needs to be merged in here. Comments? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Well, I'd rather be against. For a start, the system approach to management is only one of many. Also, it was most popular in the sixties, and although even today it does exist as a way of approaching management, it is by no way the most popular. Therefore it would be a far stretch and sort of an usurpation to integrate one particular vision of management science with the article on the whole field. Pundit|utter 16:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes by Mydogategodshat

Changed the reference about regime change to "a new President comes into office". The article on regime change defines it as "the overthrow of a government (or regime) considered illegitimate by an external force (usually military), and its replacement with a new government according to the ideas and/or interests promoted by that force." Obviously a new president being elected into office doesn't meet this definition. If anyone can come up with a less clunky way of saying that please change it.

I cut two outside links that were links a book and another to a consulting firm. Blatant self-promotion.

I cut this from the management page: 

The people doing management have gotten a bad reputation as shown in the following quote:
Lots of people confuse bad management with destiny -- Elbert Hubbard

It may be that bad management is a consequence of a lack of skills in the people doing the managing. Or it may be that bad management is the tendency for people to blame the skill level of individuals for problems inherent in the system.

Does this belong under bad management, or under Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? Or maybe nowhere?

And who is "Elbert Hubbard"? Any relation to "L. Ron Hubbard"? :-) - Rootbeer 2002-04-07

No, keep it here. May be someone can fix it. --maveric149, Sunday, April 7, 2002

Concerning the Elbert Hubbard quote: I think it belongs in, but perhaps with a better clarification. When it happens that management was not up to the task, it may be that the manager lacked competence, or that the task was insurmountable. All Hubbard was saying is that we too often give incompetent management a pass and assume that the bad outcome was destiny / due to an insurmountable problem: Instead, we should have demanded more of the manager. -- Fred_PA_2000

The Wikipedia article on Elbert Hubbard says that L. Ron Hubbard is his nephew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred PA 2000 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Community management is currently an orphan. Please can someone who knows about this topic find a place to link it to or merge it with. Or maybe list it at VfD if there's no point to it. Angela

I have removed:

RECENT EVENTS

Since 2002, the global step of reduction of costs and optimization of resources became a legal constraint, an obligation for all the highly-rated corporations or unquoted in the stock exchange.

Everything began with the law SARBANNES-OXLEY in the United States in 2002 who returned compulsory internal control. From 2003, Canada and European Economic Community took measures aiming at identical objectives:

1- The realization and optimization of the operations of reduction of costs and management of the performance;

2- The reliability of the financial information of costs and performances;

3- Correspondence to laws and to current regulations, notably standards of management of the quality;

4- The implementation of the rules of good governance “to play collective” :

-Every individual member of the company contributes to his level of responsibility in the internal control;

-The responsibilities of the staff of frame vary according to hierarchical levels;

- The general manager assures ultimate responsibility; he is responsible for the system of internal control;

-The directors of the various units are responsible for the internal control bound to the objectives of this one;

-The financial executives and their teams play a role of dominating piloting: they follow and analyze performances, by report not only in objectives bound to financial information, but also to those bound to the operations of the company and to the legal obligations.

These measures which impose the internal coherence as base of the management put company in front of a major technological challenge: the integration of their system of internal control. Internal control directed towards “realization and optimization of the operations of reduction of costs and management of the performance" gets organized indeed around the notion of inductors of costs, the unforeseen phenomenon, the abnormality or the dysfunction which provokes an increase of costs. By opposition the inductor of activity is the event which activates the activity of the company.

To understand difficulty recovering, it is necessary remember yourself that the most known methods of management arise from the cost accounting which depends on the financial accounting itself. So very wide-spread methods such as the ABC (ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING), the ABM (ACTIVITY-BASED MANAGEMENT), “Cost killer””, etc., rest on the inductor of activity and not on the inductor of costs.

It is only very recently that multi-field searches in management drove to the normalization of the inductor of costs and to its standardization through the new technologies of information and the communication. 

To see :

It would be better put elsewhere, Maybe cost management ot corporate governance. mydogategodshat 06:29, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How to described the mission

The example in the description of the mission in this article has been just changed from:

1. The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to make soap.
2. The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, the purpose of being there in the market and gives direction to the whole company.

I wonder if one of these statements is more true than the other. And fundamentally if it is even possible to reduce a mission to one item. You might as well state:

3. The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to make soap, to sell it, and to make a profit.

In fact statement (1) is about production. Statement (2) is about market participation and management control. And statement (3) is about production and economics. I however believe that the scientific literature in the 1980s particularly spook of "continuation" as main mission. In the 1990s "shareholder value" was the magic word.

4 The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to create shareholder value

If we must believe the news missions are no longer about production, marketing or economics. Its all about creating money for the shareholders and the top management themselves. -- Mdd (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Management Definition

"Management in simple terms means the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals." this is said in my academic book and is seems to have been quoted by "Mary Parker Follett". Unfortunately I am not getting the reference for the same. If someone is accessing the same. Please quote the reference. ceo 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic Defination of Management

Management is a glue, which hold the elements of business togather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aatiff (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Too narrow

This definition of management in this page is geared towards (people) management in business. Thus, it should be renamed to "management (in business)" or "people management". In stead this page should have a more abstract definition like:

A system that ensures a certain task is performed properly.

Then the links at Management (disambiguation) could be placed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.253.196 (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MGNT Does not equal BA

I think they should be kept separate (Management and Business Administration). In academia, Business Administration is the more popular, correct wording of the degree. Management is too broad, there's risk, energy, human resource, money, etc types. I'd say keep Management as a definitive article, and keep Business Administration as an academic-related article. The difference is split by a thin line, but nevertheless it is appropriate to keep them separate. (Sirkevinalot (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

In the United States, many business schools offer B.S. in management, and some even offer M.S. in management. I agree that management is too broad, but some business schools do offer academic degrees in management. We should mention that in the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

this para


http://wiki.edeskonline.com/Different_Stages_of_management#Overview_of_the_articles


seems to be useful as an external link

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you see useful about that link? What little content there is seems to be promotional material for the company providing the material, and it is covered with google ads. Kuru talk 11:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, after looking at your contributions, it's pretty clear what you see useful about the link. Please stop promoting this site, Sanjiv. Kuru talk 11:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Who the Heck is Jeff White?

Is this vandalism? I have no idea who Jeff White is:

"Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones, just ask Jeff White."

No idea - removed. Kuru talk 12:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Resourcing

In the first paragraph we have "Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation ..." but 'resourcing' isn't officially a word; check any dictionary. While I think it should be in dictionaries (it's used all the time in business) perhaps we should refrain from using this word until it is actually given 'word' status. Wikidsoup [talk] 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Management vs. Management Science

I was redirected to Management from a link contained on the Operations Research page. Management and Management Science are two different topics. There is a major distinction between the two fields. Management Science is a mathematical science and management is not. Why does the management science page exist? The orginal page was merged with Operations Research last year. Management Science is NOT Management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.192.33 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And neither is Management Science part of Operations Research. I demand it have its own page, with its own history!--62.252.10.14 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong statement on authors applied psychology to management

In the section "20th century" article says "Walter Scott and J. Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management". "Walter Scott" refers to wrong wikipedia article on famous novelist who died in 19th century, before anyone applied psychology to management. J. Mooney would require a reference if he ever did serious contribution to psychology in management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Fadeev (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Management Science with Management

Someone botched it and merged the "Management Science" page with the "Operations Research" page. Management science is merely the science of management. It can be thought of as the body of knowledge that considers all of the factors that contribute to the overall strategic management context, the application of such consideration is done with the intent to yield sound management decisions. See the professional journal "Management Science." I think the confusion stems from the fact that Frederick Winslow Taylor, who was heavily involved in operations research, wrote the foundational operations book "The Principles of Scientific Management." But that does not mean that somehow only a subset of management science becomes management science. One cannot change the basic meaning of words. As such, the "Management Science" page should have been merged with, and should redirect to, the "Management" page. --TDJankins (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I partly agree, that you got a point. Under Talk:Operations research#Merge Management Science with Management I proposed to recreate the management science lemma as disambiguation page.
As to Frederick Winslow Taylor involvement, he promoted the terms "shop management" and "scientific management" in the 1910s. The field of operations management emerged in the 1940s and management science became a synonym of that late 1940s, early 1950s.
-- Mdd (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Some of management science spun off into Information Systems probably in the 1980s. Psyc12 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to simply refer back to what I've already said. Management science means the science of management. No amount of branding can change that. Webster's first two definitions of science are:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>

Also, in regards to when operations research sprang up, operations research was just the more formal branding that came around for the sub-field of management that Taylor and others had already firmly established, what some had called scientific management. Sure, it's evolved since Taylor, but it's still the same sub-field.

Additionally, looking at the wiki for the Management Science journal, I see that someone botched that as well, saying that it too is all about operations research. It's not! Here's the journal's own abstract showing that it is about management science aka management:

"Management Science is a scholarly journal that publishes scientific research on the practice of management. Within our scope are all aspects of management related to strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, information technology, and organizations as well as all functional areas of business, such as accounting, finance, marketing, and operations. We include studies on organizational, managerial, and individual decision making, from both normative and descriptive perspectives."--TDJankins (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think management science should be merged with management. It makes sense to have a section on MS in the management article, but there should be a free-standing article with more detail. I just did a search for management science departments in universities. In some universities it is taught in business and in others it is taught in engineering. Sometimes colleges of business have only management science (and not management), so they only focus on MS. At some universities there is management science, and then there is OB or OD or some other area/s that are usually part of management. There are separate articles on HR and on OB, so it makes sense to also have one on MS. Psyc12 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


Worldwide view needed on management training

Currently this article states "At the graduate level students specialize in major subareas of management, specifically entrepreneurship, human resources, international management, organizational behavior, organizational theory, or strategic management. Worldwide, there are (post)grad management programs with many different specializations, certainly not just these listed so definitively above. Other areas include marketing, IT and many other areas. We need to represent a worldwide view of management training in this article. Thoughts from other editors please?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Will add some neutral, reliably sourced editing then, which provides some much needed balance and due weight, to the training section of this article, and importantly, represents worlwide view, particularly of (post)grad around the world and the vast range of different specializations that training institutions offer management students. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias These grad programs are also not just at the doctoral level. Mentioning only doctoral programs would be biased.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved brief section listing a few USA courses, from the lead of the article, to the base of article, as per other similar articles and where training sections are placed. Will also now add to the list of (post)graduate training programs worldwide, based on my comments left directly above, regarding worldwide view.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment

management's 6 m's are missing!! wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_6_M's_in_management —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.68.246 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The “Basic functions” could use expanding as it is simply bulleted at the moment. Henry Mintzberg’s article, “The Manager’s Job”, can help add more substance to this section.

Additionally, the “Formation of the business policy” is a bit out of place and can be placed elsewhere. Ashecheerios (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Bad article

This article does not mention Project Management anywhere, not even in the See Also. Crock81 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Course assignment summer 2015

I will be searching for a citation for the following passage:

Henri Fayol was one of the most influential contributors to modern concepts of management.[citation needed]

I will also be adding a small amount of additional content with appropriate citation.
--Maple.chesnut (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispositive factor?

Can management following the introductionary definition not be equated by the "dispositive factor" introduced by Gutenberg? Check ISBN 3-540-66318-5! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.25.180 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Effect of cultural values

The addition of the extensive new section on the effect of cultural values is too detailed for this general overview article, in my opinion. There is an article on cross-cultural leadership that might be a better home for this information, or perhaps a new article on Effects of cultural values in management, which could then be linked from here as part of the list of "Topics". WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Management and the key points

What are the key points in management definition and how they help managers. Evans Rabi (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Management/Archive_1&oldid=1143190349"