Talk:Peter Drucker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Business  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Publications[edit]

I just added a few publications of Peter Drucker and sorted them alphabetically. Should we add the publication date where available?

Certainly, that'd be useful info. Everyking 20:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intended meaning?[edit]

What does this mean? "Even successful programs, such as US Social Security, long ago ceased to be interesting to an increasingly alienated citizenry." Is this an accurate understanding of what Drucker believed? What does it mean for a pension program to be "uninteresting?"

It means that people are more likely to read a newspaper article about "troubles at NASA" or "a new leader for the National Park Service" than they are about "Social Security windfall only temporary, experts say." When Social Security was new, presumably, people were more interested in it. This is speculative, of course, as was a lot of what Drucker wrote, but it is not implausible. An exact quote, from the "Sickness of Government" chapter of AGE OF DISCONTINUITY (1968), is that "the welfare state turns out at best to be just another big insurance company, as exciting, as creative, and as inspriing as insurance companies tend to be. No one ever laid down his life for an insurance policy."

Just prior to this is the comment about the "sickness of government" and not being "inherent" to democracy. Is the intent to say that government sickness is endemic to democracy? Or is the point to say that democracy can exist in a healthy form, but just that is happens not to in the US? I found the citing of Social Security to further confuse the point of this paragraph. If the point of that paragraph is to show the sickness of government exists in the US, then don't muddle that point by bringing up the relationship of the sickness to democracy. Put that into a subsequent paragraph, maybe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lion71 (talkcontribs) 17:03, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Proposed additions[edit]

Should there not be a link somewhere to the peter drucker's wikiquotes?

It will be nice to add a picture of Dr. Peter Drucker. peter drucker i — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.25.252 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

P.D.'s Education[edit]

Does anyone know at which institutions Drucker was educated? --Email4jonathan (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The books I have of his only mention that he was educated in Vienna and England. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic Ideas[edit]

Need to make sure that Drucker's concepts are not accidently distorted. "The essence of business enterprise, the vital principle that determines its nature, is economic performance." (The Practice of Management, p 7) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to improve those last two "basic ideas" and add some citation. ComputerGeezer (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

bad link?[edit]

Just tried to follow the link of Note 2. It goes to a non-existent http://www.druckerinstitute.com/about-peter-drucker.html page. 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)~ Roberto Regensteiner17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Regensteiner (talkcontribs)

I just clicked on the link to Drucker's new pluralism and got an error message. Kdammers (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Which link is it? BoL (Talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

COI[edit]

I have tagged the page with {{coi}} because someone was making edits relating to him, thanks to a tip. BoL (Talk) 02:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am the accidental instigator of the CoI alert. It was my intention to contribute some of the Drucker Institute's (a nonprofit research institute and archive based at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif.) expertise about Peter Drucker's life and work to his wikipedia entry. I inadvertently garnered a CoI alert because, in an effort to be transparent about my organizational affiliation, I used the username "DruckerInstitute". I've now renamed my account with my own name, as per wikipedia's policies, and am hoping that through an RFC (which I will post shortly), the many well-sourced contributions and hours of pro bono writing time we donated to wikipedia will get a fair consideration from fellow wikipedia community members and administrators. I make no claim that our contributions are perfect, but do believe that others will find them to be valuable additions to the entry on Peter Drucker. My apologies for setting off the alarm bells. -- Zach First Zfirst (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Extensive edits and additions[edit]

A user affiliated with an organization expert in Peter Drucker's life and work contributed extensive edits, additions, and citations to the Peter Drucker entry.

Please do not add back the Drucker Institute edits in bulk. Some of the edits are not encyclopedic in tone or content. Removal of items critical of some aspects of Drucker's work should be done cautiously, and only if the critiques are not supported.
Take a careful look at the content offered by the Drucker Institute; then add back specific, supported, encyclopedic items. We should avoid phrases like "Drucker’s insights extended far beyond business". If a work is his "magnum opus" we should say who said it was. ComputerGeezer (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
With as much as was added, it's probably a lot easier to add it back in bulk, then clean up as necessary. Otherwise, we're going to have to go back through the history, pick out what looks good, add it in, and then touch it up anyway to make it fit in the old layout. This was discussed extensively last night (admittedly on the admin's channel on IRC, sorry for not making it more public), and several administrators including myself came to the conclusion that what Zfirst added was acceptable. We probably should have left a note here - again, sorry for not doing so - but you'll notice a lot of useful references were added and anything that's not presented completely neutrally can be easily touched up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I won't revert this again myself. But let me ask again: Please don't add the Drucker Institute edits back in bulk. Before these edits, the article had four external sources and one reference to the Drucker Institute Archives. The Institute edits removed three of these sources, added four links to the Drucker Institute website, and removed the critique.
I respectfully submit that the consensus position before the Institute edits should be the baseline for the article. Can't we save the Institute edits in a working area where the supported portions can be extracted and the hagiography ignored? ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The edits look ok, especially after the Controversy section was added. However, you should feel free to add back anything else that you feel was taken out wrongly, ComputerGeezer. The person who initiated this RfC should consider removing it. ImpIn | (t - c) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to add a "Criticism and Controversy" section[edit]

Thanks to all for giving my contributions a fair read. I did indeed delete the one sentence of criticism in the original article - as noted in one of my documented edits - because it was not well-written, was out of place in its section, and was far from comprehensive. Below is a new, full section on criticism of Peter Drucker and controversy about his work - complete with external citations - that I'd like to add. What do you think?

Criticism and Controversy

Drucker wasn’t immune to criticism. The Wall Street Journal researched several of his lectures in 1987 and reported that he was sometimes loose with the facts. Drucker was off the mark, for example, when he told an audience that English was the official language for all employees at Japan’s Mitsui trading company. (Drucker’s defense: “I use anecdotes to make a point, not to write history.”) And while he was known for his prescience, he wasn’t always correct in his forecasts. He wrongly anticipated, for instance, that the nation’s financial center would shift to Washington from New York.[A]

Others maintain that one of Drucker’s core concepts—“management by objectives”—is flawed and has never really been proven to work effectively. Specifically, critics say that the system is difficult to implement, and that companies often wind up overemphasizng control, as opposed to fostering creativity, to meet its goals.[B]

Drucker didn’t shy away from controversy, either. Although he helped many corporate executives succeed, he was appalled when the level of Fortune 500 CEO pay in America ballooned to hundreds of times that of the average worker. He argued in a 1984 essay that CEO compensation should be no more than 20 times what the rank and file make—especially at companies where thousands of employees are being laid off. “This is morally and socially unforgivable,” Drucker wrote, “and we will pay a heavy price for it.” [C]

[A] “Peter Drucker, Leading Management Guru, Dies at 95, Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=ai8kHtXL8u.Q&refer=europe

[B] http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/sbida/1992/pdf/04.pdf

[C] Byrne, John A., “The Man Who Invented Management,” BusinessWeek, Nov. 28, 2005

Zfirst (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one had any objections, suggested edits, or questions about this proposed section, I've added it to the main page. Zfirst (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the article, but the C&C section throws it off balance for me. These are encyclopedic articles, not critiques. None of the positive "sounding" content balances this section properly. This section should contain both views like a pro/con section. The purpose is to present information, not show that Drucker was human and had faults. This article is not about a politician. Therefore, I suggest keeping the section but adding balance that demonstrate how some liked his theories. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and find the section to be fine. ImpIn | (t - c) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

he was super tight whtie man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.69.253 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, balance and all that aside, I think we don't need to duplicate the section in two places. Removing one, leaving the second. Jackrepenning (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressed: Literature section incomplete[edit]

Hello all,

I just worked on some formalities (both in article and on discussion page/ no contents altered) to make it even more readable. What still needs to be done: the literature section is incomplete in that publisher and place of publication are missing for every entry; these are even more important than ISBN numbers. I cannot add them for lack of information and time, so just the hint from me.

Otherwise very informative and readable article. Thanks for the good work done!

Regards, Sophophilos -- 147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the literature section by adding additional categories of Drucker publications and adding publisher and place of publication for every entry in the section. --Zfirst (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

I added a simple quote, "To focus on contribution is to focus on effectiveness.", from page 70 of "The Effective Executive." With this quote, I believe Drucker makes an important, clear statement that can help individuals concentrate on what's important, the recipient of the service or good. With this user-focused mentality, I think people will perform in the interest of their business, themselves, and their customers. With just a few words, Drucker covers a great deal powerfully. For these reasons, I thought the quote should be added. Thanks for your consideration of it.

Sincerely, Ian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.89.113 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The quote, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" was originally said by Alan Kay I think it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.254 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these quotes should be reviewed. Citations need to be added for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.150.200 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the Drucker quotes throughout appear to be well-sourced; perhaps the above comment is out of date? In any case, I am working on adding sources for the "Key ideas" section, which could definitely use them. I just added in citations for the first few in that bullet list.--Zfirst (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Every "Key idea" now has a citation that supports it with at least one published source.--Zfirst (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The quote "Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility." appears to also be attributed to Louis Armstong. Perhaps a source should be cited or the quote removed if it can not be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.63.243 (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by editing[edit]

This article suffered a drive-by last month. Although some of it was justified, the article as a whole is now worse rather than better. I'm going to restore what I believe is useful/important (if flawed) and encourage a more nuanced edit next time. (The "criticism" tag is intended to encourage inegration, not deletion, of the criticisms...)

214.4.238.180 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

quotes[edit]

"Erroneous assumptions can be disastrous." Peter Drucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Basic ideas[edit]

Hello; I have nominated this article to GA in TH wikipedia and can you add any reference about Peter Drucker's Basic ideas ? And nice to meet you :) --B20180 (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Peter Drucker.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Peter Drucker.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ernesto Sirolli TED Talk Quotation[edit]

A potential Peter Drucker quote was addressed in a popular TED talk by Ernesto Sirolli ( http://www.ted.com/talks/ernesto_sirolli_want_to_help_someone_shut_up_and_listen.html ). Ernesto quotes Drucker as saying, "planning is the kiss of death for entrepreneurship," and the quote has been gaining popularity since then and has been attributed to Drucker without a citation. Does anyone know if Drucker actually said this? JaimzCC (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

no mention of Drucker's influence in Protestant "Church Growth" movement[edit]

google test for { Drucker church growth Warren } returns 300K hits (mostly from critics), yet this article makes no mention of his involvement in this major trend in postwar American Protestantism. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)