Talk:Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Comment[edit]

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)

Changes by Mydogategodshat[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Management vs. Management Science[edit]

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)

Business Administration vs. Management[edit]

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)

Football?[edit]

Nothing at all on football management? The manager of a football team is a pretty important and very high profile person (and in Britain at least, very often not the same person as the coach), so I'm surprised, unless there's an unlinked article at manager (football) or the like. Loganberry (Talk) 01:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article on Sports management would be great. Do you know enough about the topic to start one? mydogategodshat 04:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sadly not; I might be able to contribute bits and pieces on the role of managers in one or two sports (cricket, for example), but I don't have the knowledge to write a full article, partly because I know relatively little about football, which is the British sport where the manager's role is most prominent. Loganberry (Talk) 05:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no experience in sports management so I would not be able to write it either. mydogategodshat 05:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)rbtuico

Types of management?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

S. Marx[edit]

According me: Business Management is science which concern itself in our more or less free market system, in a study of what an enterprise is and how it can be best established and managed. If there's anybody who have a clear understanding of Business Management please be of a great help to unpack it in the most simpler way.

IRA Link[edit]

Yesterday I eleminated the line "Irish author Joe McDonnell pioneered the 'Crusade' approach in his book Hotel Management Handbook ." Being a management professor, I never heard about a 'Crusade' appraoch nor a management scientist named Joe McDonnell. The Wiki on Joe McDonnell (an IRA militant) neither lists his 'Crusade' approach nor the book. Amazon and library catalogue searches show neither a "Hotel Management Handbook" nor an author Joe McDonell. A similar line on the 'List of Limerick People' page has been deleted by others.

Being new to Wikipedia, I have no desire to get into a deletion-reentry war on this, so I leave it to the rest of you to decide on the issue.


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

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[edit]

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)

Merge from 'management system'[edit]

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)
  • Disagree. I agree with User:Pundit's arguments. I think both articles can and should be improven separately. -- Mdd (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Management-as-a-system is one way of discussing management. I think it would be most illuminating to put the discussion next to (and to relate it with) the other ways of discussing management. Ergo integrate Management system into Management. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MGNT Does not equal BA[edit]

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)

How to described the mission[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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

Too narrow[edit]

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)

External Links[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Engineering Management[edit]

Approaches

(1). Scientific Management
(2). Classical Approach
(3). Quantitative Approach
(4). Behavioral Approach
(5). System Approach
(6). Contingency Approach
(7) Dynamic Engagement Approach

Scientific Management This focus on improvement of operational efficiencies (productivity) through the systematic and scientific study of work method,tool and performance standard. The only way to expand productivity was to raise the efficiency of workers. Therefore Fredrick W. Taylor, Henry L. Gantt, and Frank and Lillian Gilberth devised the body of principles known as Scientific Management Theory.

Four basic principle of Federic Winson Tailor

(1). Development of true science management
(2). Scientific selection of workers
(3). Scientific education and development of the workers
(4). Intimate, friendly, corporate between manager and labor


Henry L.Gantt

Gantt work with tailor in several project but when he went out on his own as a consulting engineer. Gantt began to reconsider tailor's incentive system. Abanding the different rate system has having to title motivational impact. Gantt come up with new idea every workers who finished a days assign workload would win a 50 cent bonus. The added second motivation supervicer would earn bonus then each workers who reach the daily standard plus and extra bonus it all the workers reach it.

Conti nue .......

BY LAKPRIYA JLR

OMA IT SOLUTIONS

OMA.IT.SOLUTION@gmail.com

Wrong statement on authors applied psychology to management[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge Management Science with Management[edit]

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[edit]

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)