|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 23 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|The content of Goal-setting theory was merged into Goal setting. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
The position of the economy in the conjucture puts pressure or simply relieves the organization.
I'd like to completely rewrite this sentence, but I can't determine what it was intended to say.
I assume that the intended word is "conjuncture," since that's the closest thing I can find that remotely makes sense. But, even with that substitution, I can't make much sense out of it. "Puts pressure" needs a preposition, for starters. Do we mean to say the following?
The position of the economy in the conjuncture puts pressure on, or simply relieves, the organization.
If so, I think it would help to know which conjuncture we're talking about. Is it the conjuncture of economic factors that put pressure on the organization? If so, it might be a tautology (depending on what "position of the economy" means; see below). Is there some other conjuncture that's relevant here? I'm hoping someone can explain that.
I'm also having trouble with the "or simply relieves" phrase. I'm at a disadvantage because I truly don't understand what the original sentence is supposed to mean, but, to me, "relieves" implies the opposite of "puts pressure on." How can the position of the economy do both?
Finally, what is the "position of the economy?" Is that the same as the "state of the economy?" If so, why not just stay state?
- Based on the above and my own reading, I'm removing the following from the list of moderators, as it appears to be patent nonsense.
- Macro-economic characteristics
- The position of the economy in the conjucture puts pressure or simply relieves the organization. This means that some goals are easier set in specific macro-economical surroundings. Depression is for instance the least successful conjucturial phase for goal setting.
- --Pnm (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article tells us:
- Goal setting also requires not assed motivation. Simply setting a target may lead to progress in the desired direction, but understanding why the target is desired encourages personal investment into the achievement of the goal. In the motivation film "The Opus" (2008), achievement expert Douglas Vermeeren explains this important principle clearly: "When people talk of clarity it often gets described as just writing down your goals. The most important element is often left out. That is finding your motivation. If you want to get to your goals quickly you have got to clarify on why you want it. What does it mean to you? Why do you need it in your life? And the stronger and more important the why - the more power you will have to pursue that goal."
- In the same film, Dr. Brandon Leach, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, cites that even if someone is largely self-motivated they still must have the necessary skill set to reach the goal they have set. Said Leach, "In my mind, it is completely preposterous to say that motivation is always the most important intangible to possess if one wants to reach a goal of theirs. It's absurd. For example, if some young child sets to be a wizard or witch and is incredibly motivated to do, it's pretty obvious to conclude that he's going to need more than this, oh so important, motivation and seven volumes of Harry Potter."
I'd never heard of "achievement expert Douglas Vermeeren" and so googled for him. Here he is. "The Opus" is his own product. He's an expert according to his own company, but there's no indication of, say, a relevant doctorate from a fully accredited university, let alone publications in peer-reviewed psychology journals. Actually his biggest achievement seems to be to have interviewed well known experts, who are all so well known that I've actually heard of one of them.
If Brandon Leach is actually a professor of psychology at Northwestern, let's hear from him directly. As it is, googling for his name and "northwestern" brings up stuff about Vermeeren and his inspirational film. Unsurprisingly, there's no mention of him where there should be.
- As Leach also doesn't appear in the Emeritus page, I lost any sense that he's for real and am about to delete this stuff from the article. -- Hoary (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I came to Wikipedia to see what it said about Douglas Vermeeren after seeing a blog comment. I concluded that someone is spamming blogs leaving deceptive comments about Vermereen's most recent project, "The Opus". After further looking into Vermeeren, he appears to be a self-promoting businessman, and it wasn't clear why he or any of his projects or ideas should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. As Hoary mentions above, there's "no indication of, say, a relevant doctorate from a fully accredited university, let alone publications in peer-reviewed psychology journals". I'd suggest removing information about him and his ideas from Wikipedia without too much consternation. -DoctorW 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Unverifiable essay-like content to consider
I'm removing this text from the article. It's (1) inappropriate tone and (2) likely original research. There may be one or two points in all this that are worth re-incorporating, which is why I'm pasting it here.
- The ideal – taught – is a disposition that causes an intrinsic drive to be delivered in a professional manner. The parameters of professionalism indicate a time continuum – without continuity – but exhaustion and anxiety: an irony. It is a conundrum out mania, to cause professionals to work backward in order to get to the ultimate goal. It is without faith, but grander thought in moments of observation in hopes to serve need; whether it be self or others. As goal-setters, time-targets become real and more so sensational as the end draws near—a sense of urgency falls afoot. The time is precise and specific; in which is set by the goal-setter.
- Compulsions, fantasy and dreams that serve an observed inequity – or perhaps it is a personal bout against inequity – is the cause of personality; which can be determined by the value one puts on extrinsic and intrinsic drives usually defined by the individual or goal-setter. Many times the definition of goal-setting comes from free literary expression that serves a needed fulfillment of goals one must fulfill to become satisfied. This expression – written – may bring to hindsight a goal grander that must be made to self in order to fulfill that need, and even desire. At times satisfaction may come from serving others, and at times it comes from serving the self as a result of personal development. It is true that one can not identify another as being like them; for the other has distinctive traits, skills and abilities as a result of individual sovereignty attributed to individual development. It may be difficult to warrant the cause, but it is not difficult to warrant the need when under marginal disillusionment one becomes focused again. What may come to hindsight as a result of sovereignty is relative according to each individual. In other words: goals are different from person to person.
- Block of original research removed:
- However, some[who?] say that much of what is currently taught about goal setting is incomplete.
- Prominent speakers on goal setting such as Jim Rohn, Zig Ziglar or Douglas Vermeeren have suggested that goal setting involves more than writing something down, setting a date and working towards that end. In order to make the success or achievement of lasting value the person must become something different in the process. There are significant differences in how a person accomplishes a "be" goal (character-driven) versus a "have" goal (an accomplishment or a possession to obtain).
- Left summarized like this:
- I think they add a focus on the personal change that happens in the process of reaching a goal – that needs a source. --Pnm (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is also pretty one-sided (as you'd expect from an article written like a personal reflection), there's no Critique or Opposition or anything like that section. BlueRoll18 09:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)