Talk:Management fad/Archives/2012

Merge management fad with "Business philosophies and popular management theories"

These two articles seem to cover the same topic. I suggest a merge into this one, which is the more common term. --SueHay 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion these are two seprate topics but there should be link to Business Philosophies from Management Fad. The implication of a management fad as a short-term trend which will not survive over time or has a definite life cycle such as those whose value is eroded by competitive adoption has a quite different meaning than a business philosophy. --Stuartbridges1 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've put a link here to Business philosophies and popular management theories so you could see that the article is not especially philosophical. Business philosophy redirects to Business philosophies and popular management theories, but that's not an accurate redirect. The article doesn't address Business philosophy. --SueHay 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While these have started out as similar content both of them have value. These pages do need to be developed. As has been mentioned above - fads is a term used to mean temporary or transient - but then skateboarding is a fad!! and philosophies is more about what is going on behind an approach. I vote keep them both --82.44.147.147 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Drastic surgery

While the term management fad is in common use this article is in the main a series of unsupported and at times contradictory statements. Examples given include practices which has sustained themselves for over a decade (TQM, Process Engineering, Knowledge Management). The motivational assumptions are phrased in negative language and are uncited. I would have thought this was much better as a section in some other article or deleted completely. If people think it should continue then it needs drastic surgery. I will place a couple of tags on it as a holding action pending other opinions but my gut feel was to tag it for deletion. --Snowded TALK 11:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more about the "drastic surgery" comment. In The United States at least, the terms, "TQM, Process Engineering, Knowledge Management" have been dead for quite some time now in everything but governemnt work. The commercial world has moved on from those fads. This wikipedia article is right on and if anyone feels threatened by it, perhaps they are the ones guilty of perpetuating fads in their own workplaces! 209.194.156.4 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The function of the WIkipedia is not to provide a moral commentary. I agree for example that KM is more or less dead other than government (and am becoming notorious in KM circles for saying so). However it has lasted for ten years, spun off half a dozen new ways of working and is business as usual in many cases. TQM the same. A wikipedia articles cannot be Original Research (OR) or opinion which is what this article is. It has to be cited.--Snowded TALK 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

> A wikipedia articles cannot be Original Research (OR) or opinion which is what this article is. It has to be cited

Okay... here are some sources:

Spotting management fads, Harvard Bus Rev. 2002 Oct;80(10):26-7, 126. Knowledge management: another management fad?, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, October 2002 Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-practical Perspectives, David Collins, Routledge, 2000 Complexity and Management: Fad Or Radical Challenge to Systems Thinking?, Ralph D. Stacey, Douglas Griffin, Patricia Shaw, Routledge, 2000 Explaining the succession of management fads, University of Glasgow Business School, UK, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 4, Issue 2 May 1993 , pages 443 - 463.

The entry stays as written, you're only disputing it because it hits home for you.

Management Fads exist and I've read several of the references and they don't support the text of the article. Just finding references with "fad" in the title does not count. The point is that this article is incoherent deals with longtime sustained practices (which may have been fads at the start but aren't any more) and generally fails to take a neutral point of view.. Your last unsigned comment breaches Wikipedia rules - deal with the comments not the editor. Also an anon IP address is hardly in a position to criticise anyone. Neither do you have authority to say that the entry stays as written, that is not how the Wikipedia works. You have if nothing else reactivated by interest in sorting this article out. Maybe you can come out from behind your anon ID and work on improving it? --Snowded TALK 23:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for article

Anyone who doubts that management fads exist should read The Witch Doctors (1966) by John Micklethwaite and Adrian Wooldridge, especially Chapter 2 "The Management Theory Industry". The list is this article is poor so far, however. Deipnosophista (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Something missing?

Looking at the examples of fads here, it strikes me that these all became "fads" (and subjects of derision and cynicism) when people started to apply them beyond industrial/production processes to much less quantifiable activities. E.g., TQM is an effective paradigm for managing the development and production of an airplane, but devolves into a collection of platitudes when applied to adminstrative or general business activities. Maybe that's the real driver to something being a fad? Is there any literature on that idea?Psychlist (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your ques about literature, I haven't looked for or stumbled across any. But I tend to agree w/ you - One of the trends among management fads is surely that one might get applied across industries far removed from its original intent. For example, a Company having difficulties finds a way to drastically improve itself; it turns around its own operation, and then either begins marketing its "solution" itself or, more likely, the consultant they used begins to market it, using that success story as a catapult. Perhaps thats when the management "technique" becomes a "fad" ?? (hope that makes sense)...One has to wonder however if the change in that Co was really a result of changes in operational management or a coincidental outside influence; for ex high gas prices might drive up the sale of bicycles and thereby the bike manufacturer's profit, but not as a result of the latest changes they made in their operation. (thats a silly example I realize)....Anyway, from what I've seen, "management fads" are most prevalent in areas such as Customer Service, where the issue/problems are in people control and employee churn, etc...just my 2 cents...Engr105th (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Despite the tag and some elapsed months no citations have been added to the list of examples. We have just had another added this morning, without citation or rationale. In the continued absence of specific citation I will delete the examples section in a few days. It just seems to be a listing area for things not liked by some editors. On that basis I have added a POV tag --Snowded (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not just a listing for some things not liked by some editors. Without a doubt, there is a large section of the business world that views management consultation, guru books, and other such things to be of questionable, little, or even negative value.

For empirical evidence of the magnitude of skepticism, simply search for the term "management fads" on Google or Bing and look at the size of the results returned.

With regard to the POV tag, there is no reason for it. This article is written neither in favor of, nor in criticism of its topic. I think this is one of the most fairly written articles I've read. What specific examples of bias can anyone identify within the article itself?

Additionally, given the potential motivation of an editor who is professionally involved in management consulting to seek to eliminate any criticism of their field of practice, that unless specific examples can be given of bias issues in the article, then the POV tag should be removed.Blcklbl (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose to remove the list of examples in order to remove the POV tag from the article. If the examples are not included, then there need be no dispute over which particular management theory or concept is faddish and which is more permanent and proven.Blcklbl (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can remove the tag without removing the list of examples... Reasons: 1) There is limited recent discussion on the Talk page now. 2) As long as we qualify that the term 'management fad' is subjective (and that the list are only possible examples), then the article is safe. Thats my thought...Engr105th (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---