Talk:Strategic management: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:29, 21 September 2016 edit194.29.239.75 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:40, 29 March 2024 edit undo2409:408c:8291:bb7a:dfaf:9e78:13eb:c41b (talk) Undid revision 1216171841 by 2409:408C:8291:BB7A:DFAF:9E78:13EB:C41B (talk)Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
(35 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
Line 14:		Line 15:
	\|currentstatus=FFA		\|currentstatus=FFA
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Business~~ ~~& Economics~~\|class=B\|~~importance=top}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|
			{{WikiProject Business\|importance=top}}
	{{tmbox
	\| type = notice
	\| image = ]
	\| text = {{#if:\| of this\|This}} article is '''substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication.''' Please '''do not flag this article as a ]''' of the following source:
	{{#if:See ] for ]'s investigation. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)\|{{{!}} class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%; background:transparent;"
	{{!}}-
	! style="text-align:left; font-weight:normal;" {{!}}\|}}
	* {{cite web
	\| author=S.K. Sharma
	\| date={{#if:\|{{{monthday}}} {{{year}}}\|2009}}
	\| url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kQKLY0Ki1xEC&lpg=PR5&ots=yyqCsjv948&dq=ohmae%20strategy%20%22creative%20art%22&lr&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=ohmae&f=false
	\| title=Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach to Employment
	\| publisher=
	}} {{#if:See ] for ]'s investigation. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)\|Click to show/hide further details.
	{{!}}-
	{{!}} style="text-align:left; background-color:white; border:1px solid #c0c090; padding:5px; margin-top: 5px; font-style:normal;" {{!}} See ] for ]'s investigation. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
	{{!}}}\|<small>Further details can be added using the "comments" parameter.</small>}}
	}}		}}
			{{Backwards copy
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis\|archiveprefix=Talk:Strategic management/Archives/\|format=Y\|age=26297\|index=yes\|archivebox=yes\|box-advert=yes}}
			\| title = Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach to Employment

			\| year = 2009
	== Talk before 2011 ==
			\| author = S.K. Sharma
	=== Headline text ===
			\| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=kQKLY0Ki1xEC&lpg=PR5&ots=yyqCsjv948&dq=ohmae%20strategy%20%22creative%20art%22&lr&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=ohmae&f=false

			\| comments = See ] for ]'s investigation. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
	In writing this article, I have tried to give a survey of the major themes in Strategic management. It is intended as an "umbrella article" or "root article" for all the strategic management articles, of which there are a couple of dozen now. Because of this, it is broad in scope but shallow in depth. Most of the theorists or concepts would be better given separate articles where they can grow without causing this article to become too long and scattered.

	The most difficult decisions in writing this was deciding what not to include. There are hundreds of strategic management theories that I skipped, each with apostles that fervently believe they should be included in an article like this one. The inclusion criteria I used was the theory had to either have a substantial presence in academic business journals, or it had to have permiated the popular business culture (with a best-selling book for example). The overall mix is about 50 : 50. I hope this standard will be maintained by future contributors.

	In the future, we will have to be vigilent monitoring for consultants that try to use the article for free advertising. Getting your name between Peter Drucker and Michael Porter in an encyclopedia article is impressive publicity for a consultant or business speaker.

	I hope you enjoy the article and find it useful. Any comments are welcome. ] 16:16, 12 Aug 2004

	=== Strategic management vs strategy ===

	Upon my first cursory reading of this article, it doesn't seem to say much about the relation between strategic management and ''strategy'' in the game theoretic sense. Should it? Do the strategic management theorists think in these terms?] 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	: P.S. I know next to nothing about strategic management, so consider me as a (reasonably intelligent) outside observer.] 05:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	That is a good point. Game theory is not frequently used in strategic management and I'm not sure why. My best guess is that game theory is appropriate in situations where the actors, events, and outcomes are limited in number and clearly defined. This is seldom the case in strategic management, infact it is often quite the opposite. But that should not prevent us from mentioning it in this article. Can I leave that to you (because what I remember from my game theory classes would not put me in the best position to write it). ] 18:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	I have looked through my bookshelves and found a dissussion of the relationship between game theory and strategic management. Mintzberg ''etal'' (1998: page 108) says that game theory "may help to order some strategic thinking, particularly under conditions of competitive maneuvering, rather than provide any answers to strategic issues." Then on page 111 he says "Unfortunately most real world strategic issues give rise to large numbers of possibilities. There is rarely what game theorists call a dominant strategy. So the approach should not be though of as one to resolve strategic issues so much as to help order the strategists thinking, providing especially a set of concepts to help understand dynamic strategic maneuvering against competitors." I hope that helps. ] 14:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:A book called has just been released. I have not read it yet, but it seems to claim that game theory is useful in a wide range of practical business situations. ] 00:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	Great article...One of the best I have seen on wikedia...
	Czar

	I completely agree that this is a very well written article. ] (]) 03:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

	: That is a useful response, although my question was more concerned with determining what a strategy actually is from the point if view of the firm's management.

	: What does management of a widget factory do? Naive answer: Produce widgets and market them. This means finding suppliers of raw materials, finding distributors etc. My real question is why do we need to introduce a new word ''strategy'' into the discussion of management theory?

	: ''There is rarely what game theorists call a dominant strategy.'' This is clear. However, I'm not talking of a dominant strategy but any strategy. I would like to know what kind of beast are we talking about here? Not knowing any better, I would say a ''management strategy is some kind "algorithm" for temporal behaviour of the firm'', i.e. rules for determining capital expansion, securing suppliers, setting inventory levels, choosing markets, choosing ad-campaigns and so on based on current conditions and flexible enough to accomodate to possible ''reasonable'' changes in the environment. And choosing one strategy over another strategy should have some objective justification, i.e. maximization of the numerical value of some real-valued function (e.g. discounted stream of something).] 20:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	::It sounds like you are interested in the difference between strategic management and other forms of management. You might want to look at the ] article for a description of what strategy is all about and how it differs from more tactical issues. Strategic planning is about having a vision about where you want to be in the future. It is about having a mission, a set of objectives. It is the creation of a broad plan that will define the business that you are in, the type of ] you will use, and how you will create ] and attain a ]. It is about leadership more than management (see ].) It can be contrasted with more tactical and specific issues like the administration and management of the financial or human resource function. ] 07:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


	=== Publisher ===

	I completely agree that this is a very well written article. I have to ask though, does anyone else feel that recommending McGraw Hill textbooks is odd. I have never come across a book published by McGraw Hill that i would recommend to anyone. They seem very superficial, like a bunch of people who just sat down and slapped together a book while most of the other publishers mostly have authors who are very intimate with the material.

	Superfluous and off-topic comment, recommend ^^^ post for deletion.
	] (]) 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)JMB

	=== Proposing an Additional Topic ===

	I think this is an excellent article. Just about the only thing missing is a discussion of strategic alignment. Once a strategic direction is adopted by an organization, three things should be aligned with it: each of the layers of management, down to the front line, each of the functional business units that contribute to the success of the organization, and all external partners of the organization. There is a different literature on each of these aspects of alignment.

	I Think this is an excellent article.<br />
	Agrees - a mention of strategic alignment is a good idea. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:07:58, 1 June 2007\| 07:58, 1 June 2007\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->


	I just wrote an article on ] but can't find the right place to include it on this page. Any suggestions? ] 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

	Strategic vs. Tactical Management seems to be a topic that is poorly represented in the literature. Good definitions of what is Strategic and what is Tactical could assist in alleviating some extensive management debate. --] 10:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	=== Copyright violation ===
	I have discovered that large sections of this article are a copyright violation. I hope the editors here will do something about this ASAP. Thanks.--] 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	:For the record, these sections are total copyright violations (and before someone asks, the source document is not a mirror site but a European Union quasi-governmental organization):

	<blockquote>
	Strategy formulation involves:

	Doing a situation analysis: both internal and external; both micro-environmental and macro-environmental.
	Concurrent with this assessment, objectives are set. This involves crafting vision statements (long term view of a possible future), mission statements (the role that the organization gives itself in society), overall corporate objectives (both financial and strategic), strategic business unit objectives (both financial and strategic), and tactical objectives.
	These objectives should, in the light of the situation analysis, suggest a strategic plan. The plan provides the details of how to achieve these objectives.
	This three-step strategy formation process is sometimes referred to as determining where you are now, determining where you want to go, and then determining how to get there. These three questions are the essence of strategic planning. SWOT Analysis: I/O Economics for the external factors and RBV for the internal factors.

	Strategy implementation involves:

	Allocation of sufficient resources (financial, personnel, time, computer system support)
	Establishing a chain of command or some alternative structure (such as cross functional teams)
	Assigning responsibility of specific tasks or processes to specific individuals or groups
	It also involves managing the process. This includes monitoring results, comparing to benchmarks and best practices, evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of the process, controlling for variances, and making adjustments to the process as necessary.
	When implementing specific programs, this involves acquiring the requisite resources, developing the process, training, process testing, documentation, and integration with (and/or conversion from) legacy processes.
	</blockquote>

	I should add that this info is the only copyright violation I have found. However, this informaton is in all article versions going back to late 2004, when the article was first promoted to featured article status. If this info is removed the article can be unblanked but, since the violation is so integral to the article, I leave it to the article's editors to decide how this can be best accomplished. Best,--] 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	:I have reverted the copyvio notice. The PDF you cited at ] cites Misplaced Pages as one of its sources. It borrowed wholescale from here, not vice versa. ] 20:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I didn't expect an European Union agency to plagiarize the article so blatently (even with the acknowledgement, its still plagiarism). Thanks for reverting the article so quickly. My apologies for this.--] 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

	=== Proposal to remove this from list of featured articles. ===

	I have proposed removing this from the list of featured articles. My basic problem is with the prose style. I think that if this is to remain as a featured article, it has to be rewritten from top to bottom in plain English, free from empty abstractions, and with ] and ] entirely extirpated. Too much of it seems to redundantly state the obvious. There is a great deal of what I feel are bogus attempts to create the appearance of rigour by creating nebulous but overspecified categories involving decision making.

	Just as a couple of examples, I'm not sure that "Strategic management is the process of specifying an organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve these objectives, and allocating resources so as to implement the plans" says anything more than "Strategic management is deciding what an organization should do, and how to do it" does.

	I also feel no wiser upon being told that "An organization's strategy must be appropriate for its resources, circumstances, and objectives":

	:'''BILL GATES''': I think we should get out of the computer software market and attempt to corner the market in ]s.
	:'''FLUNKY 1''': But Sir, we're already mostly set up with the computer and programming things.
	:'''FLUNKY 2''': Yeah, that wouldn't be appropriate for our resources, circumstances, and objectives.
	:'''BILL GATES''': Oh. OK. Well, maybe we could start distributing software in Pog form? . . . .

	This sort of un-concrete and wishy-washy writing makes a bad impression on me, largely because it seems so obviously padded and easy to see through. I'm not even sure I'm equal to the task of reworking this. I do think that the entire article needs to be recast in plain English in order to remain as a FA. Thanks. ] 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
	====Additional Featured Article status issues====
	*jargon-filled prose
	*questionable or awkward grammar
	*poor use of punctuation
	*overuse of wiki markup '''bold text'''
	*subheads are not parallel in structure
	*possible original research; lack of any useful citations
	: - ] 10:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

	::Yeah. The description of Porter's 5 forces model is wrong, for example. It's not "like a SWOT analysis with structure and purpose". Since the five forces are a way of modeling the competition in a whole industry, they don't have anything to do with the internal characteristics of individual firms (strengths and weaknesses). Five forces analysis is industry-centric; SWOT analysis is specific to a firm. And who said SWOT analysis is structureless and purposeless? ] 23:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Although I still think this should not be a featured article, please note that it has been vandalized for literally months. Probably half of this article, including a huge number of references, were blanked. ] 23:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Not just rewritten - needs to be started again - its a mess - let me know if anyone agrees ] 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	=== Page move ===

	What the heck. The page was moved without discussion I can see. Any reason not to move it back? The current version violates the naming conventions on capitalization. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
	:No reason not to move it back, so I did. The new title didn't cover the full scope of the article, violated the naming conventions and created a lot of double redirects which hadn't been fixed. ]] 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== First Sentence of Overview ===

	What in the world is this? "Although strategy has been variously defined by management scholars based on their practical experiences in the field, but for the purpose of this study" You should not have both "although" and "but." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 15:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

	=== Merge from ] ===

	International issues seem minor enough (content-wise) that ] doesn't seem to deserve its own page. ] 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
	International strategic management should be merged to Strategic Management as a sub-theme.

	Negative. International strategic management is terminologically a misunderstanding. It should be termed as Internationalization Strategies etc.

	===Deleting Mike Cline Contributions===
	I am deleting or reverting most contributions I have previously made to this article for the following reason. I work for a company that practices and teaches Strategic Planning methodologies thus making my contribution to any article related to Strategy topics a conflict of interest an in violation of Misplaced Pages Conflict of Interest guidelines ] I did not text the reference to the Winning In FastTime text in the references since it seems to fits the lists that already there. However, if the fact that I work for the company that published the text, although I had no hand in its writing, is a ] then I will delete it as well.--] 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

	=== 'Hip' Text ===

	"Most theories of strategic management seem to have a lifespan less than that of the popularity of the latest teen music idol." Probably shouldn't be like that... <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	:Actually, I didn't add that comment. I made a mistake, thinking it was in the actual article, and reverted then restored it. Sorry about that. --] 14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

	===Once a great article===
	When this article was up for Featured Article in status in 2004, it was very thorough and well-documented. Since then it's obviously been seriously damaged -- but the list of references is still here, suggesting that it's authoritative. Would you check the older versions in the Feature Article archive and see if you think that the article from 2004 should be restored? --] 14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

	On July 8, 2006 at 12:08 a vandal , including categories, languages and much of the text. Please see the article as it existed before that vandalism. I'd like to restore that article, link the references to the text, remove the various lists that were attracting commercial links and peripheral topics, and get that article back here where Wiki readers can see it. If I don't get any feedback against this within the next week, I'm simply going to try to restore that article and modify it. If anyone is watching this page, please speak now if you have a problem with this. Thank you. --] 03:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	: Ouch. How on earth did that edit go unnoticed. Restore it at once – then go about integrating any useful changes made since. Thanks for spotting it – ] 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	: I've restored it, re-added the mergefrom tag and updated the interwiki section. I'll see what else I can do – ] 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Thank you, Oxz! Truthfully, I don't know HOW to restore it, but I thought it ought to be restored. I'll try to link the references to the text over the next few days, and also remove those vandal-attracting lists. --] 04:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	===Jargon===
	This article is about strategic management theory, a field full of jargon and tautologies. Read most reputable textbooks on the subject and you will find the same sort of tortured writing. It is better that Misplaced Pages uses the customs of the field, rather than those of "strategic management for dummies" <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:13:17 25 March 2007\| 13:17 25 March 2007\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	:See ]. No harm in using jargon as long as it's clearly defined. As for writing style in Misplaced Pages, this encyclopedia is intended to convey information to a general audience. The writing here should not be "tortured." Where you find it is, please help Misplaced Pages by fixing it. --] 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

	I've deleted the following text from the introduction in this article. If anyone feels it should be restored, please explain why (in plain English).

	::To achieve the core ]s, an organization’s strategy must take its resources and environmental circumstances into consideration. The process involves matching the company's ] to the ] the organization faces. One objective of an overall corporate strategy is to put the organization into a position to carry out its mission effectively and efficiently. A good corporate strategy should integrate an organization’s goals, policies, and action sequences (tactics) into a cohesive whole, and must be based on business realities. Business enterprises can fail despite 'excellent' strategy because the world changes in a way they failed to understand. Strategy must connect with vision, purpose and likely future trends. To see how strategic management relates to other issues, see ] and ].

	--] 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	I've deleted the following text from the introduction in this article. If anyone feels it should be restored, please explain why.

	::Strategy formulation and implementation is an on-going, never-ending, integrated process requiring continuous reassessment and reformation. Strategic management is ]. See ]. It involves a complex pattern of actions and reactions. It is partially planned and partially unplanned. Strategy is both planned and emergent, dynamic, and interactive. Some people (such as ] at Intel) feel that there are critical points at which a strategy must take a new direction in order to be in step with a changing business environment. These critical points of change are called '''strategic inflection points'''.

	::Strategic management operates on several time scales. Short term strategies involve planning and managing for the present. Long term strategies involve preparing for and preempting the future. Marketing strategist ] has suggested that understanding this dual nature of strategic management is the least understood part of the process. He claims that balancing the temporal aspects of strategic planning requires the use of dual strategies simultaneously.<ref>Abell, Derek ''Managing with dual strategies'', The Free Press (Macmillan Inc.), New York, 1993, ISBN 0-02-900145-5</ref>

	--] 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	I don't completly agree with this article about the concept of strategic management. This article should still have some re-writtening. Article should be more academically written and outlined. This version is much better than ealier ones. One problem is that this article tries to cover all different views at the same time: economic, sociologist,,, etc. These views could be separated as own chapters.

	--] 5 April 2007

	===Deleted references===
	I've deleted the following references from this article because they are not clearly linked with the content of the article. If you are able to link any of these references with the article's content, please do this. Thank you. --] 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	<div class="references-small">
	# Igor Ansoff\|Ansoff, I. (1957) Strategies for diversification, ''Harvard Business Review'', Boston, 1957
	# Igor Ansoff\|Ansoff, I. Declerck, R. and Hayes, R. (1976) ''From Strategic Planning to Strategic Management'', John Wiley, New York, 1976
	# Collins, J. and Porras, J. (1996) “Building Your Company's Vision”, ''Harvard Business Review'', September/October 1996.
	# Patrick Dixon\|Dixon, P. (2003) ''Futurewise - Six Faces of Global Change'', Profile Books, London, 2003
	# Peter Drucker\|Drucker, P. (1973) ''Management'', Harper and Row, New York, 1983-paperback
	# Garratt, B. (1987) ''The Learning Organization'', Fontana Books, London, 1987.
	# Heskett, J. Jones, T. Loveman, G. Sasser, E. and Schlesinger, L. (1994) “Putting the service profit chain to work”, ''Harvard Business Review'', March/April 1994.
	# Heskett, J. Sasser, E. and Schlesinger, L. (1997) ''The Service Profit Chain'', Free Press, New York, 1997.
	# Jarillo, J.-C. (2003) ''Strategic Logic'', Palgrave McMillan, New York, 2003 (Exist also in other languages)
	# Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992) “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance”, ''Harvard Business Review'', Jan–Feb, 1992, pp71–80.
	# {{cite book
	\| last = Katsioloudes
	\| first = Marios
	\| authorlink =
	\| year = 2006
	\| title = Strategic Management
	\| url = http://books.elsevier.com/management/?isbn=0750679662
	\| publisher = Butterworth-Heineman, an imprint of Elsevier
	\| id = ISBN 0750679662
	}}		}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	# Leibold, M. Probst, G. and Gibbert, M. (2001) ''Strategic Management in the Knowledge Economy'', Wiley, Erlangen 2001
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	# Levy, D. (1994) “Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory, Application, and Managerial Implications”, ''Strategic Managemnt Journal'', vol 15, 1994.
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	# Lovelock, C. (1994), ''Product Plus: How Product + Service = Competitive Advantage'', McGraw Hill, New York, 1994.
			\|counter = 2
	# Markides, C. (1997). “Strategic innovation” ''Sloan Management Review'', vol 38, spring 1997, pp31–42.
			\|minthreadsleft = 1
	# Patrick Mc Namee\|Mc Namee, P.(2004) ''The Strategy Compass: Timeless Strategic Direction for all Businesses'', www.lulu.com.
			\|algo = old(90d)
	# Henry Mintzberg\|Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning”, Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 1994.
			\|archive = Talk:Strategic management/Archive %(counter)d
	# LINKED Mintzberg, H. Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. ''Stragegy Safari : A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management'', The Free Press, New York, 1998.
			}}
	# Geoffrey Moore\|Moore, G. (1991), ''Crossing the Chasm'', Harper Collins, New York, 2nd ed 1999.
			__TOC__
	# Naisbitt, J. (1982) ''Megatrends'', Warner Books, New York, 1982 ISBN 0-466-51251-6
	# Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988) “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, ''Journal of Retailing'', Spring 1988, pp 12–40.
	# Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1998) “Welcome to the Experience Economy”, ''Harvard Business Review'', July–August 1998.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. (1979) “How competitive forces shape strategy”, ''Harvard business Review'', March/April 1979.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. (1980) ''Competitive Strategy'', Free Press, New York, 1980.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. (1987) “From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy”, ''Harvard Business Review'', May/June 1987, pp 43–59.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. (1996) “What is Strategy”, ''Harvard Business Review'', Nov/Dec 1996.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. (2001) “Strategy and the Internet”, ''Harvard Business Review'', March 2001.
	# Michael Porter\|Porter, M. and Millar, V. (1985) “How Information Technology gives you Competitive Advantage”, ''Harvard Business Review'', July/August 1985
	# Schmitt, B. (2003) ''Customer Experience Management'', The Free Press, New York, 2003.
	# Schmitt, B. and Simonson, A. (1997) In ''Marketing Aesthetics:The strategic management of brands, identity, and image'' The Free Press, New York, 1997.
	# Smith, W. (1966) “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies”, ''Journal of Marketing'', July 1966.
	# Steiner, G. (1979) ''Strategic Planning: What every manager must know'', The Free Press, New York, 1979.
	# Gerard J Tellis\|Tellis, G. and Golder, P. (2002) '''', McGraw Hill, New York, 2002.
	# Treacy, M. and Wiesema, F. (1993) “Customer intimacy and other Value Disciplines”, ''Harvard Business Review'' Jan/Feb 1993.
	# Tregoe, B. and Zimmerman, J. (1980) ''Top Management Strategy'', Simon and Schuster, 1980, New York, ISBN 0-671-25401-4
	# Wickens, P.D. (1995) ''The Ascendant Organization'', MacMillan Press, 1995, London, ISBN 0-333-73580-3
	</div>

	=== Mintzberg - Strategy Safari ===

	This phrase seems to be a misapprehension: <blockquote>In 1998, Mintzberg developed these five types of management strategy into 10 “schools of thought”.</blockquote>
	The 10 schools of thought that Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel outline in Strategy Safari are not derived from the discussion of how the word strategy is used, but from a survey of the field. Mintzberg et al explain the 5 usages of the word in the first chapter of Strategy Safari, but at no point do they suggest that they have developed the 10 schools from the five usages. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
	::Many thanks for this comment. I've put a reference link to ''Strategy Safari'' at the end of that paragraph, but obviously the paragraph needs some re-writing. Would you do that? --] 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

	you say "In , E. Chaffee summarized what he thought were the main "
	It should be "she" (namely, Ellen Earl Chaffee).
	David Brock
	] 18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Thank you, I've corrected this now. Her gives her formal name as Ellen-Earle Chaffee, so I've used that. --] 16:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

	=== Moving forward ===
	As I often do when I am studyig for an exam, I came to wikipedia to contribute to the subject I am researching on. I was particularly looking for strategy evaluation, which redirects to this article. I couple of points (IMHO):

			== Proposing new edits via BRD ==
	* The article is way, WAY too ambitious. To cover all these aspects of strategy management in one single wikipedia article is way too much. Johnson, Scholes and Whittington (renowed names in the field of corporate strategy) tend to separate strategy in 3 main branches in their textbooks: Strategic position, strategic choices and strategy in action.

			The article is built on solid foundations. Like every other article, it can be improved. I noted several breaches of neutrality in this article as well as potentially important elements that are missing:
	Of course I am by no means suggesting we follow the same logic, but only illustrating that it might be better if we fork the subject into separate articles. Perhaps keeping this article as a general overview, which points to the other articles for more information. --] (]) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

			(1) Strategic management is not the exclusive prerogative of for-profit corporations with "owners" (i.e. shareholders), as the introductory definition suggests. NGOs, universities, government agencies have strategies too, and managers inside them working to design and implement them. This is uncontroversial and does not constitute an opinion. Implying that strategic management is only relevant to shareholder-owned corporations, by contrast, represents a very strong opinion underpinned by problematic bias, namely the idea that you can't exhibit strategic behavior unless your organization has shareholders. This is a political standpoint that has long been debunked in economics and the social sciences. The leading journal in the field, for instance, recently had a special on public and non-profit organizations (https://cdn.strategicmanagement.net/conferences/smj/overview/special-issues/past-special-issues/_rightColumn/past-special-issues/value-creation/s3file.pdf).
	=== Mental traps ===

			(2) Similarly, the idea that only "top" managers are involved in strategic management has been debunked decades ago. Strategy involves middle management, especially when it comes to implementation, but more generally it involves everyone in the organization since a significant portion of strategy is not a "top-down" thing but "emerging" from the bottom up, as research by Burgelman (among many others) demonstrated almost forty years ago (https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349). This is one of the most foundational ideas in the field of strategic management. Not controversial, not an opinion.
	There was just a section added on "Mental traps in strategic thinking and decision making". I think that's getting too detailed for this article, with at least some of those mentioned being of not-obvious relation. I'm going to remove the section. If this kind of thing is considered important, then hopefully a place within the article can be found to give such biases brief mention, and then possibly link to ]. ](]/]) 04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

			(3) Strategic management is intimately tied to the goal of organizational adaptation, as was argued (quite uncontroversially) by strategy scholar Chakravarthy in 1982 (https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1982.4285438). The idea that firms and other organizations must "adapt" to survive when their environment changes underpins most strategic management thinking. The emphasis on Porter in the opening paragraph is understandable but also reflective of a strong bias favoring approaches coming from industrial organization and economics. Strategic management is a diverse field that draws on evolutionary theory too (inspired by biology and ecology), not on just on economics. The introduction should reflect that to enhance neutrality.
	=== The Strategy Hierarchy - Business Strategy ===
	Porter's three strategic directions of cost leadership, differentiation or focus are insufficient for success. Treacy & Wiersema have a better version. I copied the following summary from this website http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_valuedisciplines.html
	<blockquote>
	The Value disciplines model of Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema describes three generic value disciplines. Any company must choose one of these value disciplines and act upon it consistently and vigorously.
	'''operational excellence''': superb operations and execution often by providing a reasonable quality at a very low price. The focus is on efficiency, streamlining operations, Supply Chain Management, no-frills, volume counts. Most large international corporations are working out of this discipline.
	'''product leadership''': very strong in innovation and brand marketing, operating in dynamic markets. The focus is on development, innovation, design, time-to-market, high margins in a short timeframe.
	'''customer intimacy''': excel in customer attention and customer service. Tailor their products and services to individual or almost individual customers. Focus is on CRM, deliver products and services on time and above customer expectations, lifetime value concepts, reliability, being close to the customer.
	Treacy and Wiersema argue in their excellent book The Discipline of Market Leaders that any company must choose to excel in one value discipline, where it aims to be the best - in the world preferably. This does not mean the other 2 dimensions should be completely neglected, but rather that the company should aim to be merely 'OK' in these other two disciplines.
	</blockquote>
	I hope that someone who (a) knows how to use Misplaced Pages properly (apologies to all from me on this) and (b) knows the subject can incorporate Treacy & Wiersema's model into the article. ] (]) 14:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

			(4) The prominent promotion of James Collins is debatable. He has never published a single piece of strategic management research in a peer-reviewed outlet. His "airport books" have been very successful, yet their arguments have, for the most part, been debunked by studies that rely on the scientific method (as opposed to rhetoric and the convenient selection of a few illustrative cases plagued the "survivor bias"; see, for example, this critique: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27747475). He's a consultant who's selling his services and this entry is essentially promoting them, despite evidence that they probably shouldn't be (and no evidence that they should be). To my knowledge, no serious business program teaches "Good to Great" as part of its curriculum.
	=== Moved to Wikibooks ===
	I'm moving the Business Strategy articles to ], where the content is more suitable. This is to maintain the existing content but to allow for more encyclopedic rewriting of the articles. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment was added on 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Finally, a note on process: Editors play an important role as stewards. When an addition could be improved, it is great for the contributor to know why it's been reverted. When a contributor then takes into account the reason mentioned by the editor and, based on that, proposes a revised contribution that addresses the issue previously raised, I wonder whether reverting it again is the best way to improve an entry? I'm a strong advocate of a more collaborative approach (as opposed to a top-down "I revert because I can" approach ;)
	=== Needs proofreading for good syntactical sense; consistent flow and intelligibility; and conciseness... ===
	Read this:

			If an editor justifies a reverting with a comment, and that comment is 1) addressed in a subsequent suggested edit, 2) backed by solid references, 3) incremental and rather uncontroversial, then we would probably be able to build knowledge together in a smoother fashion. As per Misplaced Pages guidelines, "consider reverting only when necessary" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle).
	"Thus, when the strategy implementation processes, there have been many problems arising such as human relations and/or the employee-communication. At this stage, the greatest implementation problem usually involves marketing strategy, with emphasis on the appropriate timing of new products. An organization, with a effective management, should try to implement its plans without signaling the fact to its competitors.

			Also, as a side note, there are other approaches to BRD (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives)
	In order for a policy to work, there must be a level of consistency from every person in an organization, including from the management. This is what needs to occur on the tactical level of management as well as strategic."

	~~...this~~ ~~doesn't~~ ~~appear~~ to be the ~~work~~ of a ~~native-English-speaker;~~ ~~either~~ ~~that~~ or ~~it's~~ ~~the~~ ~~rough~~ ~~draught~~ of ~~some~~ ~~business~~ ~~student's~~ ~~essay~~. <span style="font-size: ~~smaller~~;~~" class="autosigned~~">~~—Preceding~~ ] comment added by ] (]) 18:48, 29 ~~June~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)</span~~><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --~~> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Awaiting feedback on 1-2-3-4 in the next few days. Please back with evidence. Will then proceed with edits. Thank you all and looking forward to collaborating respectfully. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:Sorry I missed this talk page entry change on my watch list. As far as I can see you are making changes to promote a specific take on strategic management based on a limited reference base - indeed it looks a little like citation spam. Very happy to look at individual proposals for changes or questons in individual references -----] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
	== Talk in 2013 ==
			::{{Yo\|Snowded}} been watching for awhile, this editor appears to be making agf effort to add to and improve the article. Are the sources not RS? Do they not support {{u\|LaurAWiki1991}}'s edits? Can you provide specific examples/quotes of what you are objecting to? Thanks - ] 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC) {{tps}}
	After first coming across this mess about three years ago, I've come back to see that it's still a mess. I'm going to go through and start deleting portions that have no references or are obviously primary research or puff pieces from SM authors. Starting with a cleaner slate and a better structure should be a good first step. ] (]) 20:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

			:::{{Yo\|Snowded}} Just to summarize: (1) you missed the talk page entirely (for an entire week) despite being the one requesting it; (2) but you did not miss the opportunity to reverse most changes within hours, despite no one having expressed any issues with them (3) your reversals are without any serious justification, and you are not at all engaging with the very Talk Page that YOU requested. That page backed each suggested edit with robust sources and evidence to which you have nothing to add. From the looks of it, you are merely reversing because you can, which would appear to go against Misplaced Pages's guidelines. For instance, please provide some solid evidence, references, or quotes by authority figures in Strategic Management who claim that strategic management only and exclusively concerns initiatives implemented "on behalf of owners", de facto excluding all organizations that do not have shareholders (see (1) above in BRD Talk section). If you can't provide such evidence then please let people who actually did the background research and actually follow due Misplaced Pages process make the needed edits to improve this page. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)</span>
	== Talk in 2014==
	I took a cut at fixing this up. Key strategies for editing (pardon the pun):
	*Explain the concept by its key processes, formulation and implementation.
	*Split up the long history section; quick overview through 1980, then cover the 1980-present key concepts in separate section.
	*Put a lot of questionably-relevant material into an "other section"
	*Create an strategic planning/analysis section for the frameworks that previously cluttered the opening.
	I didn't take much out; just moved the borderline stuff to the end. Hope you all like it.] (]) 06:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

			::::I have a lot of articles on watch so missing one from time to time will happen. I went through the changes and accepted some of the edits. Otherwise we had he insertion of a definition from one obscure author which limited the definition so I restored the original. On the question of owners that doesn't as a word mean shareholders so it covers not for profit as well. I would accept stakeholders as an alternative. Overall this is a field highly vulnerable to using single sources to promote a specific point of view. So using Henri's Strategy Safari is one thing - as it is a third party source. But a single paper by a single academic - no. To illustrate my point the phrase "''Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks''" was replaced by a single model based on of adaption based on a single 1982 article entitled "A promising metaphor".
	== Competition ==
	I'm not an expert in corporate/management strategy, but I've heard that part of it is about absorbing (buying out) or destroying your competition. This involves fact gathering on your competition (finding out what makes a successful business), spying, finding weaknesses and secrets, business espionage, stock manipulation, hostile takeovers, and near-crimes, and the kind of things that corporations get a bad rap for. Mabey this is why the article is cloaked in such cubicle-business-language -- to hide the embarrassing moves that corps have to take to get ahead of their competition?

			::::And I don't like Porter much either but his view is dominant and notable so its there. -----] <sup>]</sup> 12:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
	== Blue Ocean Strategy ==

			:::::{{Yo\|Snowded}} Brilliant, so please explain to us all, who are the "owners" in a non-profit organization? This law firm specializing on non-profits, for instance, provides an answer that I am expecting you to argue against BEFORE YOU REVERSE MY EDIT AGAIN: "No one person or group of people can own a nonprofit organization", they say, quite uncontroversially (https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit). Do non-profits have a strategy? Yes. For example, look up the Chief Strategy Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Ankur-Vora). Does the definition you are aggressively protecting currently cover non-profits and their practice of strategic management? No, and you still are unwilling to explain why it shouldn't. You are aggressively pushing your own opinion here, which is that an organization without owners is not concerned by, and does not exercise strategic management. Furthermore, you are unable to provide any evidence to support your narrow perspective and are in denial of the evidence (and, honestly, commonsense) provided on the Talk Page. You are both incorrect about the facts and in violation of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for collaborating towards improving entries. I am not sure what your agenda is but your attitude, at this point, is clearly hurting this community. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)</span>
	I agree it's a great article.
			::::::@Snowded, thanks for the reply. @LaurAWiki1991, please see your talk page for a note about ] and ]. Thanks - ] 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
	But this should be added, as it goes beyond Porter's approach of lower cost or differentiation:
			::::::I'm not obliged to respond to ] and nonsensical accusations. Try and keep your comments here to clear proposals for changes and do not comment on the motivation of other editors.-----] <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
	https://en.wikipedia.org/Blue_Ocean_Strategy
			::::::: {{Yo\|Thewolfchild}} thank you so much for the tips! {{Yo\|Snowded}} managers acting "on behalf of stakeholders"? I must have missed something, who proposed this edit and what consensus was there around it? It would appear to be just you. The wording is so vague that it's essentially the same as "", which was my initial suggestion... except that your wording precludes a scenario wherein managers might be acting on behalf of no one else but themselves, a scenario that has long been recognized in organizational economics (by ]) and that we know exists at scale in the real world. But, as long as you feel good about winning your "revert war"... On a related note, it's interesting to see that your two most significant additions (>1,000 characters) this past month are to your own bio and to the entry about a 2x2 you came up with and seem to be exploiting commercially. For the rest, your track record seems to revolve a lot around deleting others' additions to entries, many of which related somehow to your commercial activity. I guess it puts things in perspective.] (]) 17:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
	] (]) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
			::::::::Strike the personal attacks and I'll respond on the content issue. Misplaced Pages is mediated by behavioural standards and you are breaking them-----] <sup>]</sup> 10:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
			===Moving towards a resolution===
			{{Yo\|LaurAWiki1991\|Snowded}} you two have been at this for awhile now, perhaps it's time to consider other means to move towards a resolution, such as following the steps at ]. While I suspect Snowded is already aware of this policy, I would encourage LaurAWiki1991 to read through it carefully. You both should consider the various means available to users there in resolving a dispute. (fyi) - ] 18:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
			:] is a very new editor and obviously passionate but their continued posting of ] needs to stop if they want to edit here. I made a more open change to the text and explained by reasons for that and for refusing the narrow and largely single sourced material being proposed. I haven't seen a response to that and when there is one I will respond. -----] <sup>]</sup> 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:40, 29 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Strategic management article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Strategic management is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 1, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 29, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Top‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

S.K. Sharma (2009), Human Resource Management: A Strategic Approach to Employment

Additional comments
See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 February 17 for User:Kuru's investigation. --Moonriddengirl 00:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposing new edits via BRD

The article is built on solid foundations. Like every other article, it can be improved. I noted several breaches of neutrality in this article as well as potentially important elements that are missing:

(1) Strategic management is not the exclusive prerogative of for-profit corporations with "owners" (i.e. shareholders), as the introductory definition suggests. NGOs, universities, government agencies have strategies too, and managers inside them working to design and implement them. This is uncontroversial and does not constitute an opinion. Implying that strategic management is only relevant to shareholder-owned corporations, by contrast, represents a very strong opinion underpinned by problematic bias, namely the idea that you can't exhibit strategic behavior unless your organization has shareholders. This is a political standpoint that has long been debunked in economics and the social sciences. The leading journal in the field, for instance, recently had a special on public and non-profit organizations (https://cdn.strategicmanagement.net/conferences/smj/overview/special-issues/past-special-issues/_rightColumn/past-special-issues/value-creation/s3file.pdf).

(2) Similarly, the idea that only "top" managers are involved in strategic management has been debunked decades ago. Strategy involves middle management, especially when it comes to implementation, but more generally it involves everyone in the organization since a significant portion of strategy is not a "top-down" thing but "emerging" from the bottom up, as research by Burgelman (among many others) demonstrated almost forty years ago (https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1349). This is one of the most foundational ideas in the field of strategic management. Not controversial, not an opinion.

(3) Strategic management is intimately tied to the goal of organizational adaptation, as was argued (quite uncontroversially) by strategy scholar Chakravarthy in 1982 (https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1982.4285438). The idea that firms and other organizations must "adapt" to survive when their environment changes underpins most strategic management thinking. The emphasis on Porter in the opening paragraph is understandable but also reflective of a strong bias favoring approaches coming from industrial organization and economics. Strategic management is a diverse field that draws on evolutionary theory too (inspired by biology and ecology), not on just on economics. The introduction should reflect that to enhance neutrality.

(4) The prominent promotion of James Collins is debatable. He has never published a single piece of strategic management research in a peer-reviewed outlet. His "airport books" have been very successful, yet their arguments have, for the most part, been debunked by studies that rely on the scientific method (as opposed to rhetoric and the convenient selection of a few illustrative cases plagued the "survivor bias"; see, for example, this critique: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27747475). He's a consultant who's selling his services and this entry is essentially promoting them, despite evidence that they probably shouldn't be (and no evidence that they should be). To my knowledge, no serious business program teaches "Good to Great" as part of its curriculum.

Finally, a note on process: Editors play an important role as stewards. When an addition could be improved, it is great for the contributor to know why it's been reverted. When a contributor then takes into account the reason mentioned by the editor and, based on that, proposes a revised contribution that addresses the issue previously raised, I wonder whether reverting it again is the best way to improve an entry? I'm a strong advocate of a more collaborative approach (as opposed to a top-down "I revert because I can" approach ;)

If an editor justifies a reverting with a comment, and that comment is 1) addressed in a subsequent suggested edit, 2) backed by solid references, 3) incremental and rather uncontroversial, then we would probably be able to build knowledge together in a smoother fashion. As per Misplaced Pages guidelines, "consider reverting only when necessary" (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle).

Also, as a side note, there are other approaches to BRD (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Alternatives)

Awaiting feedback on 1-2-3-4 in the next few days. Please back with evidence. Will then proceed with edits. Thank you all and looking forward to collaborating respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurAWiki1991 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this talk page entry change on my watch list. As far as I can see you are making changes to promote a specific take on strategic management based on a limited reference base - indeed it looks a little like citation spam. Very happy to look at individual proposals for changes or questons in individual references -----Snowded 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded: been watching for awhile, this editor appears to be making agf effort to add to and improve the article. Are the sources not RS? Do they not support LaurAWiki1991's edits? Can you provide specific examples/quotes of what you are objecting to? Thanks - wolf 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

@Snowded: Just to summarize: (1) you missed the talk page entirely (for an entire week) despite being the one requesting it; (2) but you did not miss the opportunity to reverse most changes within hours, despite no one having expressed any issues with them (3) your reversals are without any serious justification, and you are not at all engaging with the very Talk Page that YOU requested. That page backed each suggested edit with robust sources and evidence to which you have nothing to add. From the looks of it, you are merely reversing because you can, which would appear to go against Misplaced Pages's guidelines. For instance, please provide some solid evidence, references, or quotes by authority figures in Strategic Management who claim that strategic management only and exclusively concerns initiatives implemented "on behalf of owners", de facto excluding all organizations that do not have shareholders (see (1) above in BRD Talk section). If you can't provide such evidence then please let people who actually did the background research and actually follow due Misplaced Pages process make the needed edits to improve this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurAWiki1991 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a lot of articles on watch so missing one from time to time will happen. I went through the changes and accepted some of the edits. Otherwise we had he insertion of a definition from one obscure author which limited the definition so I restored the original. On the question of owners that doesn't as a word mean shareholders so it covers not for profit as well. I would accept stakeholders as an alternative. Overall this is a field highly vulnerable to using single sources to promote a specific point of view. So using Henri's Strategy Safari is one thing - as it is a third party source. But a single paper by a single academic - no. To illustrate my point the phrase "Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks" was replaced by a single model based on of adaption based on a single 1982 article entitled "A promising metaphor".

And I don't like Porter much either but his view is dominant and notable so its there. -----Snowded 12:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded: Brilliant, so please explain to us all, who are the "owners" in a non-profit organization? This law firm specializing on non-profits, for instance, provides an answer that I am expecting you to argue against BEFORE YOU REVERSE MY EDIT AGAIN: "No one person or group of people can own a nonprofit organization", they say, quite uncontroversially (https://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-law-basics-who-owns-a-nonprofit). Do non-profits have a strategy? Yes. For example, look up the Chief Strategy Officer of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Leadership/Executive-Leadership-Team/Ankur-Vora). Does the definition you are aggressively protecting currently cover non-profits and their practice of strategic management? No, and you still are unwilling to explain why it shouldn't. You are aggressively pushing your own opinion here, which is that an organization without owners is not concerned by, and does not exercise strategic management. Furthermore, you are unable to provide any evidence to support your narrow perspective and are in denial of the evidence (and, honestly, commonsense) provided on the Talk Page. You are both incorrect about the facts and in violation of Misplaced Pages's guidelines for collaborating towards improving entries. I am not sure what your agenda is but your attitude, at this point, is clearly hurting this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurAWiki1991 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Snowded, thanks for the reply. @LaurAWiki1991, please see your talk page for a note about signing your posts and indenting them. Thanks - wolf 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not obliged to respond to a series of aggressive statements and nonsensical accusations. Try and keep your comments here to clear proposals for changes and do not comment on the motivation of other editors.-----Snowded 17:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: thank you so much for the tips! @Snowded: managers acting "on behalf of stakeholders"? I must have missed something, who proposed this edit and what consensus was there around it? It would appear to be just you. The wording is so vague that it's essentially the same as "", which was my initial suggestion... except that your wording precludes a scenario wherein managers might be acting on behalf of no one else but themselves, a scenario that has long been recognized in organizational economics (by agency theory) and that we know exists at scale in the real world. But, as long as you feel good about winning your "revert war"... On a related note, it's interesting to see that your two most significant additions (>1,000 characters) this past month are to your own bio and to the entry about a 2x2 you came up with and seem to be exploiting commercially. For the rest, your track record seems to revolve a lot around deleting others' additions to entries, many of which related somehow to your commercial activity. I guess it puts things in perspective.LaurAWiki1991 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Strike the personal attacks and I'll respond on the content issue. Misplaced Pages is mediated by behavioural standards and you are breaking them-----Snowded 10:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving towards a resolution

@LaurAWiki1991 and Snowded: you two have been at this for awhile now, perhaps it's time to consider other means to move towards a resolution, such as following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution. While I suspect Snowded is already aware of this policy, I would encourage LaurAWiki1991 to read through it carefully. You both should consider the various means available to users there in resolving a dispute. (fyi) - wolf 18:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

LaurAWiki1991 is a very new editor and obviously passionate but their continued posting of personal attacks and slurs needs to stop if they want to edit here. I made a more open change to the text and explained by reasons for that and for refusing the narrow and largely single sourced material being proposed. I haven't seen a response to that and when there is one I will respond. -----Snowded 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories: