This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) at 19:19, 13 February 2021 (Archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:19, 13 February 2021 by Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) (Archiving)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 years  |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article | |||||||||||||
 | Business B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
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)
Categories: