Talk:How (book)/Archive 1

Review Request
Hi,

I am a frequent Wikipedia contributor but also a paid consultant to Dov Seidman, who create the How philosophical framework. This is why I have submitted this article for independent review, as per WP:COI. I have endeavored to abide by all Wikipedia policies, including those on disclosure, notability, neutral voice, reliable sourcing, verifiability, and no original research. Please let me know if you think there's any issue and I will try to correct it. I recognize that unconscious bias can slip in when there is a conflict of interest.

I welcome any discussion and am happy to answer questions or make changes. You can read about my background on my user page. Thanks.BC1278 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Primary source issues
I came across the article at another user's talkpage. It appeared promotional so I took the step of removing the book as a primary source. As stated in my edit summary, I think it still relies on the author's own words too much but I left them in for now until a conversation could develop. - Bri (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi   I looked through your changes and I think there's confusion that a work of philosophy (or book) can't be used to support a Wikipedia page about that philosophy (or book.) By entirely removing all references to the main book about the philosophy, you've made it very difficult to understand the philosophy. Under WP: Primary, even if it was a primary source, you can still use it with care. The article can't be based just on the primary source (and you can't overuse it), but it can be used. You don't have to remove it entirely. To see the treatment of books about philosophy on Wikipedia in action, you can follow links to articles from List_of_important_publications_in_philosophy For example, Philosophical_Investigations by Wittgenstein; Of Grammatology by Derida; Consciousness_Explained by Dennett. I haven't looked at all of them, but most of these articles about a work of philosophy use that work of philosophy in the article.  There is no blanket Wikipedia policy that says a book can't be used in an article about the book. I'd also point out that this article was independently reviewed and approved in AfC; then edited again by others. No one else thought to cut out the books references to itself. One editor inserted the "advertising" flag and I think was looking for changes in tone. BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * I'd also ask that you please consider restoring the first sentence. The new first sentence is not accurate, and is now unsourced. The previous opening sentence included a reference to a secondary source, an article in Strategy + Business. It's an accurate representation of a complex work.BC1278 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * Thanks, but I think I'm done working on this article now. Another editor can consider the changes you proposed. - Bri (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for review of redraft
I would like to propose the following redraft to this article, with changes inidividually explained below: User:BC1278/sandbox/how_(book). COI disclosure: While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I am a paid consultant to Dov Seidman, who created the "How" philosophical framework.

1. The current first sentence of the existing article is an inaccurate summation of the book, with no citation. I suggest replacing it with an accurate summary: "How is a philosophical framework that argues "how" individuals, companies, organizations and governments conduct themselves in a "hyper-connected" world matters more than what they do."

2.In sentence two, the name of the writer is Andrew Ross Sorkin, not Andrew Ross. I'd suggest making that the last sentence of the lead, not the second sentence. I also moved a sentence about Thomas Friedman to here because it fits better than in the Overview section,

3. I suggest including a synopsis of the book/philosophy (suggested language: User:BC1278/sandbox/how_(book))

An editor removed a previous synopsis of the book from the article because they said it was promotional. Since the book is agreed to be notable, then a synopsis of its content is an important part of the article. (The article, with a summary of content, had already gone through the AfC process.) Not having a description of the content would be like having an article about a novel or movie and removing the plot - deeming the plot itself to be promotional.

That editor also mistakenly believed that WP: Primary means that a Wikipedia article cannot cite or be sourced to primary source. This is an incorrect statement of policy, specifically in regards to books.


 * "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." WP: Primary

Here are some WP: Featured Articles about book that extensively cite to or rely on the book itself, and include extensive synopsis and summaries: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Night (book), To Kill a Mockingbird.

The editor also mistakenly asserts that too much of the description of book/philosophy uses the author's own words. But the article did not include extended direct quotations from the book or other articles. Rather, it very selectively quoted terminology by the author to describe critical concepts, like "Blind obedience"and "Informed acquiescence." The proposed draft does the same. To not allow the authors own words would be like asserting the phrase Oedipus Complex could not be used in the entry for The Interpretation of Dreams.

In order to show the restored material abides by the Primary policy, for each sentence relying on the book, I show the quote to the exact language of the passage in the book How, demonstrating it is a "descriptive of facts" from the book, "which any educated person with access to the primary source" could verify. Note: the summary of the book in the suggested draft also includes multiple secondary sources.

Individuals

How refers to how individuals should behave, rather than how they can behave. Instead of thinking about behavior in terms of obeying rules, and whether behavior conforms to regulations, How advocates thinking about behavior in terms of values.


 * "The language of laws and rules is the language of can and can’t, right versus wrong. It’s a binary language with little room for nuance or shades of meaning. That is why it is inadequate to describe the full richness of human behavior. We are, as people, so much more than right or wrong. When you get stuck in the language of permissibility and prohibition (can versus can’t) you get stuck thinking in relation to rules rather than in the realm of true human potential. You can discuss a lawsuit in terms of utility—“Can we fight this effectively in court?”—but it is quite another thing to discuss it in terms of your values—“Given what we believe, should we fight this in court?”"(Chapter 5, From Can to Should.)

How argues that principled behavior provides a sustainable competitive advantage to people and organizations. Behavior provides a means of differentiation, even in circumstance where goods and services become commoditized. "Outbehaving" as opposed to just "outperforming" or "outproducing" has become a source of advantage.


 * "In 2008 I proposed “outbehave” as a new idea at the Ideas Festival, a gathering in Aspen to exchange ideas considered to matter most to our world. I noted that the term outbehave is not found in dictionaries, unlike outperform, outfox, outsmart, outmaneuver, outproduce, and so on. Language is important because it shapes our thinking. These terms are in the dictionary because they express common habits of mind and behavior. The idea that we can excel in our behavior and that principled behavior can be a source of advantage does not yet have a word for it. We’re like bodybuilders who rip their arms and torsos but ignore their legs. We have become top-heavy. We know how to outspend and outsmart our rivals, but we know relatively little about how to outbehave them. Figuratively speaking, it’s time to hit the gym and work on the behavioral legs that will both ground and propel us to more meaningful and sustainable lives."(Preface)

Organizations

According to How, the most sustainable organizations are also the most moral — via "sustainable values" (as opposed to "situational values"). Such organizations have a culture of sustaining relationships over the long term, with values such as "integrity, honesty, truth, humility and hope". Organizations that "outbehave" their competition are more likely to achieve success.


 * "Relationships propelled by situational values involve calculations about what’s available in the here and now. They are about exploiting short-term opportunities rather than consistently living by principles that create long-term success. They stress what we can and cannot do in any given situation. Sustainable values, by contrast, are all about what we should and should not do in all situations. They literally sustain relationships over the long term. Sustainable values are those that connect us deeply as humans. They include integrity, honesty, truth, humility, and hope.... Those already getting ahead understand that the best, most certain, and most enduring path to success and significance in these dramatically new conditions now lies in behavior—getting our hows right over time."(Preface)

How argues that companies need to differentiate themselves via behavior toward clients because globalization has made many products and services commodities.


 * "Those already getting ahead understand that the best, most certain, and most enduring path to success and significance in these dramatically new conditions now lies in behavior—getting our hows right over time... In this networked global economy, it is getting harder for organizations and individuals to succeed just on the basis of what they produce or the services they provide. In fact, if you line up all the winners today, you will notice that few win anymore solely by what they make or do. If you make something new (or better, faster, and/or cheaper), the competition quickly comes up with a way to make it still better and deliver it at the same or an even lower price. Customers instantly compare price, features, quality, and service, effectively rendering almost every “what” a commodity."(Preface) "

Information technology has amplified the consequence of behavior and made all behavior more public.


 * "At the same time, in our hyperconnected, hypertransparent world, there is no longer such a thing as private behavior. For better or worse, everything that happens can now be forwarded, tweeted, and blogged about. We all now have unprecedented power to see over the fences and through the walls past public relations (PR) departments and right into the innermost workings of organizations, even into boardrooms and into the characters of the individuals who comprise and lead organizations. We can evaluate not just what they do, but how they do it." (Preface)

How says a better way than top-down command and control is for organizations to regulate and guide their own behavior based on "connect and collaborate."


 * "When we look at the world through the lens of how, we see leaders shift, and others even transform, their habits of leadership from “command and control” to “connect and collaborate.” It’s a move from exerting power over people to generating waves through them. These inspirational leaders have come to understand that as the source of power shifts, how they elicit and guide behavior must shift accordingly." (Preface)

How says there four models of group culture: "Anarchy and lawlessness", "Blind obedience", "Informed acquiescence", and "Self-Governance."


 * "Anarchy and lawlessness, blind obedience, informed acquiescence, and values-based self-governance represent the four basic types of group culture, but almost no company, team, or group is wholly one or another;..."(Chapter 10)

How promotes self-governance as the most values-based model and therefore, most likely to allow an organization to thrive.


 * "Since values provide a stronger, more adaptable navigation system than do rules and procedures, values-based self-governance provides a system that allows an organization to grow, adapt, mutate, and evolve in the marketplace without losing sight of its core mission or straying too far from its chosen path.""The Case for Self-Governing Cultures"(Chapter 11)

Leadership in the How framework is best practiced by inspiring behavior rather than "command and control" acquiescence, coercion or motivation


 * "When we look at the world through the lens of how, we see leaders shift, and others even transform, their habits of leadership from “command and control” to “connect and collaborate.” It’s a move from exerting power over people to generating waves through them. These inspirational leaders have come to understand that as the source of power shifts, how they elicit and guide behavior must shift accordingly. This, too, is quite simple. There are only three ways to generate human connection and conduct: You can coerce, motivate, or inspire."(Preface)

Creativity, helpfulness and hopefulness can only be inspired, not commanded.


 * "Human qualities like creativity, helpfulness, and hope can’t be commanded; they can only be inspired in people." (Preface)

Reputational capital is as important to success in business as physical capital.


 * "Great companies and leaders today know that their reputational capital is as valuable to their success as physical capital." (Chapter 9)

Winning organizations build cultures centered on humanity, How argues, defining humanity as "how you connect with and inspire other humans."


 * "Today we don’t need just technology innovators. We need behavior pioneers who innovate in how. One day, not too far in the future, everyone on the planet will be connected by technology. The more that happens, the more the only differentiator will be the quality and depth of your humanity—how you connect with and inspire other humans... It is not enough to proclaim your humanity; you have to live it! The winning organizations are those that deeply understand this. They are placing their humanity at the center of how they operate, lead, and govern..." (Preface)

4. Suggest creating a new section, "Research", with one paragraph removed from the current "Overview" (which should be limited to the synopsis of the philosophy) and one new paragraph. Suggested language for section is here: User:BC1278/sandbox/how_(book)

5. Suggest adding the following sentence to "Applications in Society" section:

Retired four-star U.S. Navy admiral and NATO supreme allied commander James Stavridis included How on his 2017 list of five non-fiction books U.S. President Donald Trump should read.

6. Suggest renaming this article How (philosophy) because the subject, as discussed in the article, goes extensively beyond the book itself. This article was originally called How (philosophy), then renamed after an editor removed the synopsis of the philosophy.

BC1278 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

References


 * The article is pretty clearly focused on the book in both the current version and your proposed draft, so I think your requests under points 1 and 6 above are not good changes. Item 2 was an easy fix, so done. (Even as a connected contributor, you should be able make simple fixes yourself without controversy.) The others will require more time to review. --RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 21-MAY-2018

 * 1) The draft proposal contains too many quotes from the book. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style. Please edit to remove these by taking care to include only a minimum of text; consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text where appropriate (See also close paraphrasing).
 * 2) The best reviews to have included in Wikipedia articles about books are those written in peer reviewed journals by academics who specialize in the subject matter. An attempt should be made to include information from these more-reliable sources. Two of these types of sources which have reviewed the How book are shown below.""
 * 3) The draft as it now stands is inordinately long. Articles should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects.    Please edit your draft proposal in order to more closely-align with Wikipedia's summary style.  .   spinten do    19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review. I'll look to those sources and to condensing the draft more. Just to double check -- I showed all those long quotations in Talk only to reference where the paraphrasing comes from in the book. I am not proposing they be added to the article. It looks like you looked at the proposed draft. I'm just double checking because the use of quotations is mostly (not entirely) around terms of art from the book, such "outbehaving", "informed acquiescence" and "situational values." I do see two quotations that are not terms of art, and these could be paraphrased. I can remove the quotation marks from most of the single world or double word terms of art -- I only hesitate to do so because some of these, like "outbehaving", are so specific to the book.BC1278 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
 * My apologies, it's usually the case that the text shown in a draft version is the text that an editor wishes to be added to the article. I'll go ahead and disregard the above request then, since it contains text which you don't want added to the article (the quotes). In your revision, if you could specify verbatim what text you'd like added, along with a verbatim description of the text which it is supposed to replace, then I can have a look at it. An example request would look like the following:
 * Text to remove: Under the heading Blue in the first sentence of the third paragraph, please remove the following sentence: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."
 * Text to add: Under the heading Red after the second sentence of the first paragraph, please add the following sentence: "Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." When you're ready to proceed with the revision, please activate a new edit request under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you!  .  spinten do    03:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Text to add: Under the heading Red after the second sentence of the first paragraph, please add the following sentence: "Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." When you're ready to proceed with the revision, please activate a new edit request under a new level 2 heading at the bottom of this talk page. Thank you!  .  spinten do    03:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised Edit Request
Hi User:Spintendo. Here is the revised edit request, as per your instructions, above.

1. Text to Remove: Lead: "How is a 2007 book on organizational behavior by Dov Seidman."

Text to Add: How is a 2007 book by Dov Seidman, re-issued in an expanded edition in 2011 with a forward by President William Jefferson Clinton The book, and subsequent articles by Seidman, offers a philosophical framework that argues how individuals and organizations behave (for example, with honesty and integrity) is more important to success than what they do (e.g. the products and services they create.)

Rationale: Replaces unsourced, incomplete information. The books are articles are not exclusively about organizational behavior. How also about individuals and nations. I have sourced to a peer-reviewed journal and an article as back up. Also, the 2011 edition is as important as 2007 to mention because of the foreword by Clinton and because it was greatly expanded. This is sourced to a high-quality business journal.

2. Text to Remove: In the lead: "It has been cited frequently by New York Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Andrew Ross Sorkin.    Since 2011, The HOW Column has appeared in Forbes and several international publications  and previously appeared in Business Week. How has been a presentation topic at the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the Aspen Ideas Festival. "

Text to Add: Since 2011, The HOW Column has appeared in Forbes and several international publications and previously appeared in Business Week. How has been a presentation topic at the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and the Aspen Ideas Festival. The philosophy has been cited as influencing the work of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin. The How framework is frequently discussed in the New York Times.

Rationale: Essentially the same text, but it updates the sources and slightly better organizes the material.

3. Text to Remove:  Top of Overview. "In The World is Flat, by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, How is number eight in his rules for the new world: "HOW you do things as a company matters more than ever." This section is a synopsis of the book and articles. This sentence doesn't belong in the synopsis. I'd suggest deleting it or moving it to the last sentence of the lead.

Text to Add Please add the following to begin the Overview, sourced to two peer-reviewed journals, the book, and multiple articles. Similar overview was previously removed because the sourcing was mostly the book:

How refers to "how" one behaves, especially in business, including how it makes decisions, how it develops strategy and how it treats customers. Technological innovations can be quickly copied by competitors. But honesty, ethics and an organizational culture that promotes good behavior toward customers provides a competitive advantage that can't easily be copied. Instead of thinking about behavior in terms of obeying rules, and whether behavior conforms to regulations, How advocates thinking about behavior in terms of values.

Since the world has become more transparent and connected, especially because of information technology, the Seidman says that behavior matters more than it has in the past and in different ways. Individual behavior can affect the world much more than it has previously, for good or bad. It also can affect people and organizations far removed from the individual. The world is in an "era of behavior", according to Seidman.

He argues that behavior provides an important means of differentiation from competitors. "To Outbehave the competition" has become a source of advantage in an environment where products can easily be copied and many managers are well trained to be efficient.

4. Text to Add, Overview, immediately after "How promotes self-governance as the most transparent, values-based model and therefore, most likely to facilitate "principled behavior."

In a a time of unprecedented transparency, the effect of good and bad behavior is compounded. Reputational capital is as important to success in business as physical capital. Winning organizations build cultures based on humanity, How argues, defining humanity as "how you connect with and inspire other humans."

5. Text to Add: New section header under Overview: "Research"

Rationale: what follows isn't part of an overview of the book or philosophy.

6. Text to Move: Please move from Overview to under the new section, Research:

In an independent study of several thousand corporate employees conducted by Boston Research Group, and designed by Dov Seidman's company, LRN, 43% of company cultures were top-down management; 54% were "informed acquiescence" and 3% were "self-governance." More than 90% of employees in self-governing firms, and two-thirds in the informed-acquiescence category, agreed that "good ideas are readily adopted by my company." At blind-obedience firms, fewer than one in five did.

7. Text to Add: Update to the Research. New second paragraph:

A 2016 study called the How Report included about 16,000 employees in 17 countries, 8% said they work for self-governing organizations. About 30% said they worked for “blind obedience” organizations and 63% said they worked for “informed acquiescence” companies. Some 99% of those self-identified from "self governing" organizations said they would recommend working for their employer compared to 31% of those at “blind obedience” organizations. Organizations described by employees as having both "strong character" and "inspired trust" performed four times better than those with other cultural markers, such as collaboration and celebrating others. Performance was measured by market share, employee engagement, customer satisfaction, long-term sustainability of the company.

8. Text to Add: In "Applications in society" section, new lat sentence: "Retired four-star U.S. Navy admiral and NATO supreme allied commander James Stavridis included How on his 2017 list of five non-fiction books U.S. President Donald Trump should read. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs)

Reply quote box with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 26-MAY-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request.  .  spinten do    04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Request clarifications
Hi Thanks for the review. And thanks for working this request edit queue, which used to sometimes have requests sit for months. I appreciate your work here very much. I wanted to discuss a few points about the update.

1) *You omitted three paragraphs form the existing story that I did not request be omitted and you didn't explain a reason. These were sourced to a high-quality business journal and two reliable sources. I think perhaps you misinterpreted my request for Overview to mean that I wished it to replace these paragraphs, instead of adding to them. I was worried this request might be read as such - I should have clarified this request was meant to be additive, not as a replacement. As the removed material includes a significant and serious criticism of the book's main argument from a respected source, I suspect you didn't remove it because you felt it was promotional. But I can't be sure of the reason for deletion, since it wasn't explained why these three graphs were removed. I'd request they be restored:


 * According to How, the most sustainable organizations are also the most moral — via "sustainable values" (as opposed to "situational values"). Such organizations have a culture of sustaining human relationships integrated into their daily practices.


 * The theory has been questioned in Strategy + Business by an editor who argued that among "the most successful companies were quite a few that were known for visibly amoral — or, in some cases, exploitative — values and practices." But Seidman maintains the global trends of interdependence and transparency will make such behavior increasingly difficult to sustain.


 * How says a better way than rule making, or top down command and control is for community members to regulate and guide their own behavior based on shared values. How says there three models of organizational governance, culture and leadership: "Blind Obedience", "Informed Acquiescence", and "Self-Governance." How promotes self-governance as the most transparent, values-based model and therefore, most likely to facilitate "principled behavior."

2) *Respectfully, I believe you have misapplied WP:NOR to the section about research you removed and the section I proposed. First and foremost, my rationale is that this research was reported on by full-length stories two tier-one, high-quality reliable sources, Fortune Magazine and The Economist, that specialize in this subject matter. The Wikipedia article does not cite to self-published research reports, which would be OR. Once a high-quality source reports on research, then the research can be included, without violating NOR, as I read it. So, for example, if the National Rifle Association did a non-peer reviewed research study on gun violence in schools (OR), and that report were reported about in The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, then the reports on the research become secondary and therefore can be included within WP: NOR. Any support or criticism of the original research, if from reliable sources, might also be encyclopedic. Or to use a very famous example, the report of the Warren Commission includes massive original research about the Kennedy assassination. Many people believe the research and conclusions; some people don't believe it at all. But the research itself has been reported on by so many reliable secondary sources, that it's clear that the secondary sources can be used as citations to support a description of the original research. Therefore, I think both the deleted and declined text are not disqualified under WP:NOR. Or to look at it yet another way, if there was no formal study, and the Economist and Fortune just said Seidman asserted conclusions to be his beliefs (e.g. 10% of all organizations are "self-governing" as defined in How), there would be not be a NOR problem summarizing the secondary source with this assertion. So why would adding a research layer to support conclusions, if then reported on by high-quality secondary sources, disqualify it? BC1278 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

3. One of your re-wordings, in sentence two of the Overview, changes the meaning of "How" in a way that really distorts the meaning of book. I think perhaps my original writing wasn't clear. I had suggested: "How refers to "how" one behaves, especially in business, including how it makes decisions, how it develops strategy and how it treats customers." You change this to: "According to the book, How refers to "how" one behaves, especially to a business itself,[ital min] including how that business makes decisions, how it develops strategy and how it treats its customers."

The phrase: "especially to a business itself" is misleading because it can be read to mean how a business behaves toward an external business, whereas almost all of the book is about how individuals and businesses should internalize moral behavior within their own lives and business (e.g. treating their employees well, giving their employees self-governance, being honest and transparent with colleagues and customers). The wording "especially to a business itself" might be read to mean "how" refers to how one behaves to "to a business" - outside of one's own. Almost all of the book is about internal behavior. I think it's just an inadvertent wording issue, but clarity is pretty important in philosophy. How about: "especially in the world of business.": "According to the book, How refers to "how" one behaves, especially in the world of business, including how a business makes decisions, how it develops strategy and how it treats its customers."

4) I understand that your point about not using the lead to explain the premise of the book. So, I'd suggest that we at least broaden the sentence to include the main topics it covers:


 * "How is a 2007 book and associated column published in various publications by Dov Seidman dealing with the topics of organizational behavior, leadership, and moral philosophy."

5) I know this article, as it stands, is focused on the book. But it's really more analogous to Six Sigma. There are books about it, too. But like Six Sigma, it's an applied leadership, management and organizational philosophy. And How is also largely about moral philosophy. In the writings after the book, (e.g. there must be 15 Ny Times columns almost entirely about How by Tom Friedman alone). The moral philosophy is applied to all sorts of situations from politics to broad societal issues. Seidman also expands the applications to everything from the treatment of and remedies for the native people in Australia to violence in the NFL. There are dozens of other examples. Then there's the research.  Maybe we should just call this "How" instead of "How (book)" even though it will mean going to a disintermediation page. I am thinking about how to keep up with the continuing developments - or even just to capture what's happened so far, outside of the book and articles by Seidman. Suggestion for renaming?


 * Even without a renaming, we could add something like this to the end:


 * "Tom Friedman, in particular, has expanded the How philosophical framework, usually in interviews with Seidman, to apply to a variety of societal issues involving moral philosophy, including the interaction of privacy and technology, attacks of democracy, the purpose of humanity after technology displaces work; and the escalation of "moral outrage" to protests. Other include..... [there are 15 such columns to date, by Friedman. I could describe each with a few words or I could just say there are many such columns and provide the citations.][User:BC1278|BC1278]] (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reply
Thank you for your reply, and I agree that the suggestions for what was to be incorporated could have been more clear. But importantly, the two sentences you've suggested offer a much better improvement over the ones I placed, so I have replaced them per your wording. Let's go over the other information I removed to see if we can't find better ways to reformulate them as well. I look forward to your suggestions on how we can alter the above removed passages in order to better fit the article. Another idea would be information on the book's production, how it came to be, what inspired it (beyond what is already stated in the book). This type of auxiliary "behind the scenes"-type information is perfect for an encyclopedia article about the book, and its absence in the article thus far should be corrected. Regards,  .  spinten do    03:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "How says a better way than rule making, or top down command and control is for community members to regulate and guide their own behavior based on shared values. How says there [sic] three models of organizational governance, culture and leadership: "Blind Obedience", "Informed Acquiescence", and "Self-Governance." How promotes self-governance as the most transparent, values-based model and therefore, most likely to facilitate "principled behavior." This passage, besides the errors in grammar, seemed only to be repeating certain aspects of the text in the publication. The reader has already been told that the book deals with "changes in organizational behavior", and surely the removed textual information that "community members (should) regulate and guide their own behavior" is just another way of expressing that precept. Is there another unique aspect of the book that we may highlight?
 * 2) "The theory has been questioned in Strategy + Business by an editor who argued that among 'the most successful companies were quite a few that were known for visibly amoral — or, in some cases, exploitative — values and practices.' But Seidman maintains the global trends of interdependence and transparency will make such behavior increasingly difficult to sustain." This passage begins with what looks like a criticism of the book, which would be perfect for its own section of the article. But the passage then goes on to attempt a refutation of that criticism, which is not the purpose of a criticism section. The article should not function as a debate between different theories. By itself, the statements are interesting ideas: that companies who, for whatever reason, have felt that their acts of immorality have offered them the best path to success, and that the author feels that this path will increasingly become untenable in the future. And yet, if saying it would only make it so. This passage, if included, ought to state briefly not necessarily why amoral actions in the future will no longer be sustaining actions for success, but rather, how (i.e., what specific actions would be alternatives to immoral actions proscribed by the author). One or two examples I think would be acceptable, as the text should not become a platform for debate between these theories.
 * 3) "In an independent study of several thousand corporate employees conducted by Boston Research Group, and designed by Dov Seidman's company, LRN, 43% of company cultures were top-down management; 54% were "informed acquiescence" and 3% were "self-governance." This information was placed into the article at the end of the overview section and is connected to the paragraph ahead of it in the text (See point #1 above). Having these figures in the article by themselves seems only to delineate a point made earlier in the article, that the way businesses conduct their business needs to be changed so that "self governance" is more equally distributed among those businesses which fall under the other two management styles (i.e., "change in organizational behavior"). I think as a rule, percentages and raw data like this should be avoided in book articles, as these figures usually need large amounts of explanatory text to become relevant for the reader.

Reply
Thanks to you again for working with me on this to get it on good shape. I have tried to address your points and directions above. It was easier when I was sticking to the summary of the book itself. It's a lot harder to weave together multiple secondary sources! If you don't like the format of how I presented this below, I could also create a sandbox with all the suggested changes in one place.

1. I'd suggest this as the new second paragraph of Overview.

"According to How, the most "sustainable" organizations over long periods of time are also the most moral. Such organizations have a culture of "sustaining human relationships built into their their day-to-day practices and behaviors." "

Rationale: I would include it because it distinguishes between short-term success and sustainable success (the examples usually given by those arguing amorality works better in business involve short-term gains, according to Seidman, which are not "sustainable" over the long-term.) The benefit of treating people better in business is that it will sustain relationships over a longer period of time. That's the point of the second sentence above and also explains why Seidman thinks How works and why people/companies are actually harming themselves in the long-term by behaving badly, even if it yields short-term profits.

2. I would suggest then moving this sentence to be the next sentence in the same paragraph. I addded the word "contemporary".

Move text: Furthermore, the book says that individual behavior can affect the contemporary world much more than it has previously, for good or bad — and that for businesses, behavior provides an important means of differentiation from competitors.

3. Following that, in a new paragraph, I'd suggest inserting this:

"But an intention of leaders to have their organizations behave well is not enough, he says. Seidman argues that "blind obedience" to leaders and rules is much less effective in creating a successful organization than one where shared values are internalized and believed by staff who govern their own behavior. Self-governance organizations can respond to the the nuance and flexibility needed in daily business better than one where rules and commands are put in place, but viewed as obstacles to be skirted.

Rationale: this is a management philosophy that is a significant part of How and differentiates it from corporate governance management advocates who argue just for more regulations. The book doesn't just say "set up good rules of behavior." These often fail, he says, because people don't internalize or believe in the underlying principles. So they evade the rules.

4. I would then suggest going back to the existing paragraph that explains his view on the role of technology on transparency and connection -- I suggest adding the words "because of technology". The role of technology is a big part of the book and articles.) And then I gave the examples you spoke about, to be added.

"Seidman argues that as the world becomes more transparent and connected because of technology, behavior matters much more than it has in the past." As the world has grown more uncertain, people rely more on trust to feel confident about outcomes. Companies that earn trust can translate it into direct economic benefits, such as more consumer sales or being charged lower interest rates. By creating transparency and trust, an organization also generates a better reputation, which translates into more long-term business. Organizations that instill values and a sense of higher purpose in their staff are also more innovative, have more employee loyalty, receive more staff referrals, and achieve better customer satisfaction, Seidman contends.

5. Suggesting new paragraph to be inserted that summarizes the media reports of the LRN study without use of stats. That gets rid of the problem with stats you mentioned, but still mentions the conclusions, which seem useful.


 * The book was followed up by a research study in 2011 and another in 2016, called the "How Report", designed by LRN and conducted independently, that quantified the effect of behavior on organizational performance. As reported by The Economist and Fortune Magazine, these studies found that self-governing organizations generated quantifiably better business outcomes."

6. Then I would suggest transitioning to add the criticism of the philosophy, from Strategy and Business. This piece is a discussion with Seidman, not a review or article centered on the criticism, so I don't know if it's enough to create its own sub-section, but extended it:

Text to insert:  "In Strategy + Business, an author questioned whether there was cause and effect between good corporate behavior and good corporate performance, as Seidman states. He argued that among "the most successful companies were quite a few that were known for visibly amoral — or, in some cases, exploitative — values and practices."  The author further argued that the corporate world seemed to be splitting between "command-and-control authoritarianism, often in the name of cutting costs," and "enlightened management" advocated by Seidman. "

7. Here is a stab at a new section on the origins and influence of the book. Is this what you had in mind? Something else I should look for? I moved one paragraph from Overview (the last one) to here.

Reply
Thanks very much. This is getting much better. I think I just need to answer the requests for clarification from you. -BC1278 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

1. Insert text in "The publication's philosophy" as sentence three of the first paragraph:

"Furthermore, the book says that individual behavior can affect the contemporary world much more than it has previously, for good or bad.

2. Insert text as a new third paragraph in "The publication's philosophy"

"But an intention of leaders to have their organizations behave well is not enough, he says. Seidman argues that "blind obedience" to leaders and rules is much less effective in creating a successful organization than one where shared values are internalized and believed by staff who govern their own behavior. Self-governance organizations can respond to the the nuance and flexibility needed in daily business better than one where rules and commands are put in place, but viewed as obstacles to be skirted.

Rationale: this is a really the critical organizing principle of the book and philosophy. How you set up an organizations defines whether or not it ends up behaving well, the book argues. Just issuing edicts from its leaders or rules of conduct (even if these appear to mandate good behavior) doesn't work well, he contends. The organization must instill its core values (e.g. humility, honesty) into the staff and then behavior reflecting those core values will follow.

3. Text to insert as new final paragraph of publication's philosophy:

"In Strategy + Business, the journal's editor, Art Kleiner observed in 2012 that the corporate world seemed to be splitting between "command-and-control authoritarianism, often in the name of cutting costs," and "enlightened management" advocated by Seidman. "

Rationale: I don't think I made clear before that "the author" I referred to was not Dov Seidman. So I named the author here. I cut this down to a single observation that I don't think is self-evident as a counter-argument. It relates directly to how he thinks the book's philosophy is reflected in the business world.

4. Insert new second paragraph in section "Origins"

"A greatly expanded version of book, with a forward by President Bill Clinton, appeared in 2011."

Rationale:  First, we don't want the reader who becomes interested in this to look for the 2007 version, since the 2011 version is much expanded: the book's arguments have developed (especially in a gigantic new introduction by Seidman) and much of the summary of secondary sources that we rely on are based on 2011 version, not the 2007 version. Next, this a multi-page forward by Clinton, not just a few paragraphs, so it bears mentioning. He's an important person to embrace the book and I think that's worth mentioning. For these reasons, I cite to both a secondary source explaining the new edition and the new edition itself.

Thanks! -BC1278 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reply
Thanks very much. This is getting much better. I think I just need to answer the requests for clarification from you.

1. Insert text in "The publication's philosophy" as sentence three of the first paragraph:

"Furthermore, the book says that individual behavior can affect the contemporary world much more than it has previously, for good or bad.

2. Insert text as a new third paragraph in "The publication's philosophy"

"But an intention of leaders to have their organizations behave well is not enough, he says. Seidman argues that "blind obedience" to leaders and rules is much less effective in creating a successful organization than one where shared values are internalized and believed by staff who govern their own behavior. Self-governance organizations can respond to the the nuance and flexibility needed in daily business better than one where rules and commands are put in place, but viewed as obstacles to be skirted.

Rationale: this is a really the critical organizing principle of the book and philosophy. How you set up an organizations defines whether or not it ends up behaving well, the book argues. Just issuing edicts from its leaders or rules of conduct (even if these appear to mandate good behavior) doesn't work well, he contends. The organization must instill its core values (e.g. humility, honesty) into the staff and then behavior reflecting those core values will follow.

3. Text to insert as new final paragraph of publication's philosophy:

"In Strategy + Business, the journal's editor, Art Kleiner observed in 2012 that the corporate world seemed to be splitting between "command-and-control authoritarianism, often in the name of cutting costs," and "enlightened management" advocated by Seidman. "

Rationale: I don't think I made clear before that "the author" I referred to was not Dov Seidman. So I named the author here. I cut this down to a single observation that I don't think is self-evident as a counter-argument. It relates directly to how he thinks the book's philosophy is reflected in the business world.

4. Insert new second paragraph in section "Origins"

"A greatly expanded version of book, with a forward by President Bill Clinton, appeared in 2011."

Rationale:  First, we don't want the reader who becomes interested in this to look for the 2007 version, since the 2011 version is much expanded: the book's arguments have developed (especially in a gigantic new introduction by Seidman) and much of the summary of secondary sources that we rely on are based on 2011 version, not the 2007 version. Next, this a multi-page forward by Clinton, not just a few paragraphs, so it bears mentioning. He's an important person to embrace the book and I think that's worth mentioning. For these reasons, I cite to both a secondary source explaining the new edition and the new edition itself.

Thanks! -BC1278 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Origins and Influence
The book was created based on Seidman's training in law and moral philosophy, and what he learned at the firm he founded, LRN, which offers education and consulting about organizational culture and values. Seidman developed the "shared values" recommendations of How at LRN, which for his company are humility, integrity, passion and truth.

Thomas Friedman has expanded the How philosophical framework in a series of New York Times columns, usually involving interviews with Seidman, to apply to a variety of societal issues involving moral philosophy. These include the interaction of privacy and technology, attacks of democracy, the purpose of humanity after technology displaces work; and the escalation of "moral outrage" to protests. '''[There are 11 more columns like this. How should I treat them, if at all?]'''

According to Seidman, organizations that have engaged in formal How education include the NFL, }} the U.S. Army, and Kelloggs.

8. If you adopt the language about Tom Friedman in the paragraph above, then I think you can:

Delete text: "The book has been mentioned by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman [9] and journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin."

If you don't include it, then I would suggest the Lead,

Replace that sentence with text:

"How has been written about in the books and columns of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman."

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Reply quote box with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 29-MAY-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request.  .  spinten do    09:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks very much. This is getting much better. I think I just need to answer the requests for clarification from you. -BC1278 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

1. Insert text in "The publication's philosophy" as sentence three of the first paragraph:

"Furthermore, the book says that individual behavior can affect the contemporary world much more than it has previously, for good or bad.

2. Insert text as a new third paragraph in "The publication's philosophy"

"But an intention of leaders to have their organizations behave well is not enough, he says. Seidman argues that "blind obedience" to leaders and rules is much less effective in creating a successful organization than one where shared values are internalized and believed by staff who govern their own behavior. Self-governance organizations can respond to the the nuance and flexibility needed in daily business better than one where rules and commands are put in place, but viewed as obstacles to be skirted.

Rationale: this is a really the critical organizing principle of the book and philosophy. How you set up an organizations defines whether or not it ends up behaving well, the book argues. Just issuing edicts from its leaders or rules of conduct (even if these appear to mandate good behavior) doesn't work well, he contends. The organization must instill its core values (e.g. humility, honesty) into the staff and then behavior reflecting those core values will follow.

3. Text to insert as new final paragraph of publication's philosophy:

"In Strategy + Business, the journal's editor, Art Kleiner observed in 2012 that the corporate world seemed to be splitting between "command-and-control authoritarianism, often in the name of cutting costs," and "enlightened management" advocated by Seidman. "

Rationale: I don't think I made clear before that "the author" I referred to was not Dov Seidman. So I named the author here. I cut this down to a single observation that I don't think is self-evident as a counter-argument. It relates directly to how he thinks the book's philosophy is reflected in the business world.

4. Insert new second paragraph in section "Origins"

"An expanded version of the book, with a forward by President Bill Clinton, appeared in 2011." The new edition became a New York-Times best seller.

Rationale:  First, we don't want the reader who becomes interested in this to look for the 2007 version, since the 2011 version is much expanded: the book's arguments have developed (especially in a gigantic new introduction by Seidman) and much of the summary of secondary sources that we rely on are based on 2011 version, not the 2007 version. Next, this a multi-page forward by Clinton, not just a few paragraphs, so it bears mentioning. He's an important person to embrace the book in a meaningful way. For these reasons, I cite to both a secondary source explaining the new edition and the new edition itself.

I also added a best seller-reference, which adds evidence that the second edition was significant.

Thanks! -BC1278 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

✅
 * 1) Insert text in "The publication's philosophy" as sentence three of the first paragraph:
 * 2) Insert text as a new third paragraph in "The publication's philosophy" -
 * 3) As this is the "critical organizing principle" of the book and philosophy, it was placed as the first paragraph in the Publication's philosophy section.
 * 4) This text replaces that which was previously approved as the "book's main point" in note #1 from the Reply quote box of 29 May 2018.
 * 5) Text to insert as new final paragraph of publication's philosophy -  -
 * 6) As this is another author speaking about the book, this claim was placed in the Reception section.
 * 7) Insert new second paragraph in section "Origins" - ❌
 * 8) The Duke source is a reprint. Please provide a reference from the NYT-BSL itself.  .   spinten do    18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you again for your time on this. I hope you don't mind this back and forth -- I happen to have been writing about this topic personally for several years, outside of Wikipedia, so it's of interest to me.

1. I would suggest you revert the original introductory sentence for the section about the book's philosophy.

Insert text as first sentence of the publication's philosophy setion

"The book and subsequent articles by Seidman claim that how individuals and organizations behave towards others is more important to their long-term success than what they do."

Rationale: this is a building-block premise of the book. Without this set up, the meaning of how in How is not apparent, and the build up toward how organizations and individuals (and societies) should best organize and conduct themselves is without context. This basic premise oft he book is how almost every piece of writing about the book starts off in explaining what it's about before moving on to the main course of the philosophy.

Alternatively, I would suggest this could go in the lead section as the second sentence, which would be just as good to set up the philosophy, but I know you prefer the shorter leads. BC1278

2. I have looked and looked, but my original archived file from the Wayback machine showing the 2011 best seller business list is gone and there's no easy way on the Times website to go month by month to browse business best sellers. So I think let's just not include that it was a NY Times best seller, at least until someone helps me find the reference.

But we can still include the updated book and forward. I have three sources here. Maybe overkill.

Text to insert:

"An expanded version of the book, with a forward by President Bill Clinton, appeared in 2011."

BC1278 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"This basic premise of the book is how almost every piece of writing about the book starts off in explaining what it's about before moving on to the main course of the philosophy." I could not have said that better myself. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's menu is table d'hôte — and our order has already left the kitchen.  .  spinten do    16:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)