|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This article is the product of merging "Goal (management)" with "objective (goal)". The discussions from both those articles have been copied below for your convenience...
- 1 Goal (management) discussions
- 2 Objective (goal) discussions
- 3 New discussions
Goal (management) discussions
The thrust of this argument that "businesses have the single goal of making more money" seems a bit disingenuous. Fine, the goal is to make money but then the goal breaks down into sub-goals which, in turn, can be pursued in myriad ways. Surely goal management must be about suitable sub-goals and about how to organize these various sub-goals.
EmRick 18:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Changed the defination of Goal (Management)
Changed the definition of Goal management to "A goal is a desired state of affairs of a person or of a system. For any successful business system, it means deriving profits by making the best quality of goods or the best quality of services available to the end user (customer) at the best possible cost."
CEO 06:31, 24 Oct 2005 (IST)
A few comments
I think that this article reads more like a self-help seminar than an encyclopedic article and uses "you" in reference to the reader, which is a no-no, right? --CallmeNiel 03:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree. Completely. --Breadandcheese 08:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Another comment from the "Counterexamples" section... the article states "At that time, New York was one of the world's top cities". Has the status of NYC wrt the music industry in the United States changed since 1980?Thedukeofno 11:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- i changed some parts accordingly. the counterexamples statements were prone to misunderstanding and largely unmotivated. -- Kku 12:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The function of business is different from the ethics of good business
I agree with all the comments above. The judgement must therefore be that this is far from an unbiased piece on goals and planning. Freedman and Hayek define the goal of a business most narrowly as: being to maximize profit, period! - all else being just details. The other (liberal) side feels that business, from the outset, being a civilized and human endeavour has much broader responsibilities (vis J.K. Galbraith et al).
Because the market behaves more as an overdamped oscillator (in terms of the consumer response to punish bad practices) and because knowledge is imperfect (esp. for consumers), to let it regulate itself is a worthless ostrich like behavior. Thus I obviously lean towards the left (Galbraith). I believe a business has much more responsibility beyond simple maximizing of profit (making money).
I agree that this is more a self-help piece but for sure it is not an unbiased treatment of goal setting in management etc. and should be classified and handled accordingly.
The external links section contained a bunch of commercial and otherwise low quality links, I removed the entire section. If it turns out that one or possibly two of them were worth keeping, they could be put back, if someone who is not affiliated with these sites wants to put them back in the article. --Xyzzyplugh 02:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've put the link 'Goal Management Software' back in as I beleive it is relivant. I'm not affiliated directly with the creator however they are creating the software as part of a university (Griffith University Australia) project which is directly related to goal management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please read our external links guidelines. Links need to be more than simply relevant. This link appears to provide no actual information about goal management. It's just software that - what exactly? tracks goals? The website isn't clear. It really isn't an appropriate site to send our readers to. -- SiobhanHansa 12:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Multiple Articles on Goals
There are a few articles on goals that seem parallel. They probably need to be merged. I will try to make sure that there are see also links at least. Then I will decide which one(s) is/are the best candidate(s) to survive. All in my copious free time. Help appreciated. DCDuring 14:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Objective (goal) discussions
The following quote from the article seems to me to be critical to an understanding of goals and objectives in a balanced manner (something which is sadly lacking from the vast majority of texts around and on the subject):
"One drawback of goal setting is that implicit learning may be inhibited. This is because goal setting may encourage simple focus on an outcome without openness to exploration, understanding or growth."
No reference is provided for this and in the next sentence the article states that goal setting improves performance in 90% of cases. However, this is only the case where the performance is measured in reference to the objective/goal, which creates a self-referencing and circular logic. Could anyone provide a reference for the reference to implicit learning, understanding and growth?? These are critical issues to the attainment of the real overarching objectve, namely success, either of the individual or the organisation. Exploration is critical for innovation, understanding a funadamental aspect of long-term performance, growth is critical. Would it be possible to expand this section and its impact on the piece as a whole?? I have suggested that the article may not conform with the NPOV policy because it appears to be written generally from a specific position namely that goals and objectives are "good things". This is because the balancing point of view on goals and their meaning (referred to in the quote above) is minimised to the point of virtual invisibility.
LookingGlass 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
LookingGlass 08:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The Barry Bonds example is irrelevant and facetious
The edits on August 3 by anonymous user 22.214.171.124 are candidates for undoing. I lack experience with Wikipedia editing, if somebody else knows the ropes, please edit this.
Is there a place to contact somebody in authority, about things like undoing edits in a particular article?
Time framed to be completed within an agreed time scale.(Armstrong. M.(2006) A Handbook of Human Rresource Management Practice, 10th edition Kogan Page, London ISBN 0 7494 4631 5) --Pandaplodder 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd go ahead and merge them if there's no objection in the next few days... PeaceNT 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
pls. go back to the first page.. if you want..
Multiple Articles on Goals
There are a few articles on goals that seem parallel. They probably need to be merged. I will try to make sure that there are see also links at least. Then I will decide which one(s) is/are the best candidate(s) to survive. All in my copious free time. Help appreciated. DCDuring 15:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article wasn't great before but I think most of it is the additions today. I think they need reverting wholesale - anyone disagree? -- SiobhanHansa 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I am interested in the notion of goal ownership. It seems to me that people have goals because people have elective, intentional behaviour. A system may have a goal only insomuch that it reflects the intention of people. Often a machine is said to have goals; presumably in the guise of goal seeking behaviour. However but I feel that this leads to confusion. This seems to be the case for example in GORE (goal oriented requirements analysis). Does a machine realy own the goal? If so it implies qualities of self motivation.Cogem (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started cleaning up the article. Feel free to jump in and help. The Transhumanist 14:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)