Talk:Management by objectives

Where in the world is
i am looking for the 6 information systems used in an organization, each system has it own function and who uses the system 21:41, 17 June 2004 202.78.97.12


 * i am looking for the objective information systems in human behavior organization. 00:06, 14 March 2007 203.177.247.186


 * Looks like a personal statement without context.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Odiorne
Don't you mean George Odiorne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.103 (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Probably should add a section on this man from Univ of Michigan who reknowned on the subject of MBO.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Limitations
I have a lot of problems with the first sentence. "....employees' unethical behaviour of distorting the system...", uhh....this is not NPOV and poorly written to boot. If you know anything about management, you know that most organizational problems can be traced back to management. There are fewer bad employees than bad managers. So that statement should be fewed with a healthy skepticism. My experience has proven to me that managers are more likely to distort the system because they don't understand the underlying principles. Many try to implement buzz words and jargon they hear in seminars, without really learning the underlying principles and intended application. Drucker freely admits that his principles are primarily focused on businesses (for profit organizations). That doesn't mean they won't work for other organizations, but they must be viewed in context or modified. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also don't agree with, "When this approach is not properly set, agreed and managed by organizations, in self-centered thinking employees, it may trigger an unethical behavior of distorting the system of results and financial figures to falsely achieve targets that were set in a short-term, narrow, bottom-line fashion." It attributes problems purely to the selfishness of employees, which is not true in most case. People, with the exception of the rare psychopath, want to contribute value to the communities in which they find themselves. A more likely culprit is irresponsible management colliding with Milgram-esque obedience. When managers set objectives for their employees they should expect that obedience to them will result in an ends-justify-the-means approach. If the manager focus only on objectives, so will the employee; if the manager focuses on the means of meeting the objective, so will the employee. JohnWEPurchase (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite slight changes from the above, this section still has the same basic issues, most notably POV and poor writing. It's funny how these issues can persist for years, but I guess I don't have the time or will to fix it either. Adventuresunknown (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaulation POSI3318
Mn1070 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the opening paragraph is formed well and allows the reader to have a simple understanding of the topic.
 * On the content of "History", personally I would like to know the "other management practices," that were pulled from to create the "system" and give a little more in-depth information. I think that it would help to give the reader a better understanding of the concept.
 * I am not sure though that I like the formation of the content in the "Concept and Framework" section. I feel that it makes it hard to grab the readers interest with just putting it in outline form. It doesn't allow for there to be a complete explanation of the content and seemed a bit confusing. It just seemed to create questions... I didn't understand why the content of the section was there, what is the reason for it and why it was important to the article?
 * I liked the way that the sections of Application in Practice, and Arguments Against were formed and the information that is given. It allows for the reader to understand these portions of the topic. I understood what was being explained and it was easy to read.
 * On Recent Research, Are there any specific research data or studies that can be referred to for this section? That would allow for this section to me more relevant and not just seem like an after thought.
 * All the links on the "See Also" section worked and were informative.
 * I hope that this evaluation information helps you all.**

Article evaluation
Hap22 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Very focused on the topic of MBO. The formatting was easy for the reader to follow. Minor grammar and punctuation improvements can help in clarity for readers.
 * Good internal sourcing but there are a few places where external sources are still needed. There aren't very many sources that are listed and they lack diversity. Two of the three sources are from the same author. I'm sure this won't be a problem once the missing sources are added.
 * The article keeps a good neutral standpoint. Evaluates benefits and arguments against in two different sections. No value statements or biased language.
 * The “Concept and Framework” section appears to be an incomplete outline of what the the section entails. Once the information is added, I think it will be very valuable section that gives a better understanding of MBO

article evaluation
The lead section (introduction) has a well overview of all the components needed to have a basic understanding of the topic at hand. The key points seem to be the focus on objectives and the correlation it has with management. It does have a sufficient amount of information needed to understand the material and topic. There are also plenty of references, however I think the citation of the references needs to be altered. (SUCH AS CLICKABLE LINKS WITHIN THE TEXT).

A majority of the claims are supported from references with the exception of a few parts, however it is enough to where it is reliable. The language is precise however there are some grammatical errors. It remains unbiased throughout the page and treats the page as an informational page.

As I stated before, the entry is written well. It just has a few grammatical errors. It is for a broad audience and is not targeted to a specific audience. The article was clear and allowed the audience to have a clear understanding.

The use of subheadings and headings were used effectively in giving the audience a basic understanding of what that section of the article would cover.

As I stated before, there needs to be more clickable links that lead to more information. The formatting was great, there is lack of illustrations which is understandable however.

I like that the group can be seen through the history making edits throughout the time period we were given. To the article, you can see them adding clickable links which is what I had been suggesting throughout this article evaluation. Two improvements I would suggest would just be fixing the minor errors (grammatical) and more links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejr43 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Business studies
Concept of management objective 223.238.98.144 (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)