Talk:Onboarding/Archives/2012

Revisions Prior to November 2009
The current definition (as of 8/17/2008) is excellent - way better than what was here previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackSummers (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is good to see this article maturing and refining, but we definitely don't want to see it revert to its former hodge podge of unreferenced, uncited, and unsubstantiated claims and viewpoints rather than definitions and facts.

Comment on 9/6/2008 on Ricky Martinez's changes: these changes were more marketing copy than a contribution to the definition of onboarding. Whether KMS pioneered onboarding or any part of onboarding seems neither here nor there regarding the definition. Ricky, if you want to lay claim to the onboarding concept on behalf of KMS I recommend you author a "History of Onboarding Technology" section for the article, but be prepared to be challenged to provide 3rd party references substantiating your claims.

This wiki entry looks like an advertisement for someone's book. It should go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.129.121.62 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue for deletion, but I found this helpful and it doesn't seem out of place. The article is informative. I found this entry when trying to understand what was involved in the process of "onboarding" which I needed to learn when asked to proof a recruiting position job posting that someone else had written for my company.

I think the article should be kept.

I agree. In my search for information, the relatively new (at least to me) term of Onboarding deserves as much discussion as can be found.

Merge?
Do we need separate articles for Induction programme and Onboarding? Biscuittin (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Accepting my own bias as the author of three books on the subject, I think it would be wrong to delete this article. This field is growing. A LOT of people come to this article for their first information about what onboarding is. It is almost always the first thing that comes up in a Google search of "onboarding". In my 8/11/09 edits, I've tried to cut out much of the commercial, selling lines in the article - particularly the links to vendors. I cut out less academic articles and stuck with the books published by Wiley (the world's largest business publisher) and the Harvard press. (Some would argue that Harvard is an academic institution.) Gbradt (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)George Bradt

Per Mr. Ollies comment: "this article may document a neologism in such a manner as to promote it. Please add more reliable sources to establish its current use and the impact the term has had on its field.", accepting the deletion of links to book downloads and adding references to articles in The Economist and Business WeekGbradt (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisions following November 2009 deletion debate
In the box below, I'm including suggested wholesale changes to this article following the November 2009 deletion debate. My read on that debate is that there is now general consensus that the word "onboarding" has moved from the neologism it once was to being an accepted and valued management tool and that this article should be kept. There are, however, significant changes required to make it more encyclopedic. I've tried to address those below. While I do claim to be an expert on onboarding, my writing style is not generally encyclopedic so I'm hoping others help evolve the style - and content.

Note that the current version of the article (prior to the changes recommended below) is in violation of several copyrights as it uses material from books I've published without giving me credit. (You can download executive summaries of my books at PrimeGenesis.com if you'd like to see some of the original sources.) So whether or not my suggestions are adopted, the current version can not stand. Gbradt (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've crossed out my previous comment on copyright issues as Collect's addition of the reference to our materials addresses it. (You can download executive summaries of our books at PrimeGenesis.com if you'd like to see some of the original sources that Collect is referencing.) Thank you Collect. Gbradt (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brand New Onboarding Article 23-November-2009
Kudos to Mandsford. Your new version of the Onboarding article gets down to the basic concepts, highlights some diverse points of view, and provides appropriate references for people looking to learn more. I think your work provides a good base for others to build on and look forward to commenting on the ongoing evolution of this article - primarily on this discussion page so others can filter out anything they see as a conflict of interest. Gbradt (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Mandsford's new version addresses the flagged issues around references (added), tone or style (new article), advertisement (not at all), wikification (improved) and conflict of interest (new article by neutral party). If you're reading this and agree, suggest you take off the flags. (I would do it myself if I didn't have a conflict of interest). Gbradt (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it may be helpful to add the ISBN for "The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan" referenced in footnote 4. It's actually the 2009 version. The ISBN is 0470407035. Gbradt (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes After November 2009 Decision to Keep Article
Now that we've got the basis of a generally acceptable article, I look forward to seeing others evolve it in helpful ways. Noted that someone did add the ISBN to "The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan" reference today and then Tmol42 took the ISBN back out. Would like to understand the logic behind that move or would like to see someone else add the ISBN back in. Gbradt (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gbradt, The edit I reverted had not just added an ISBN but had restructured the lead of the article, reversing 90 days and 100 days in so doing promoting a reference to your own book up from the body of the article to the lead and relegating to the end of the sentence the established existing source of Michael Watkin's seminal work which referred to 90 days.  I could not see any legitimate reason given for this adjustment as the 100 days already has a reference to an Economist review which, lo behold, is also to the same book by you. The flow of the sentence for the reader was also not improved but adversely affected by this change as well. Meanwhile the edit removed presumably a correct reference from the body of the article for no good reason. So I reverted the edit. The addition of the ISBN appears incidental and was not the purpose of the edit it seems, but so you can rest easily I will add the ISBN to your book. I do find it a bit strange that an IP who has not had any involvemnt in this article to date nor of articles of a similar nature pops up to make this somewhat technical change followed by your intervention this evening but I shall assume good faith here and let that pass.Tmol42 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding back the ISBN for our book. I know this is a little awkward as I'm trying to contribute to this article by influencing people through the talk page instead of editing directly in order to let others sanitize my conflict of interest.Gbradt (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we've got an anonymous user promoting Kaiser and associates. Given my conflict of interest, I'm hoping someone else agrees with me and can revert out the changes the user at 74.96.73.111 made to this article on May 28 and 29, which seem far more promotional than value-adding.Gbradt (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fairs fair. I seem to recall a similar discussion about your edits and that of anonymous associates one of whom was from a publishing house flooding various Wikipedia articles with your publication last year. Rather than suggest removal which I am afraid comes across like a fit of pique, why not suggest how the article can be improved by including a suitable paragraph relating to the books content. Thin ice and pot and kettle would have course come to mind if I were not already assuming good faith.Tmol42 (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After that discussion, we arrived at an article that lays out the key points in a coherent and understandable fashion. I'm suggesting we should keep the article encyclopedic and keep out things that promote specific businesses.  Are you suggesting that "fairs fair" means we should do something different? Gbradt (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Onboarding
Seems to me that Boris1's addition of "This is not a word. Check the Oxford English Dictionary." does not help the article's communication. Hoping someone else agrees and edits it out. Gbradt (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the removal of content and inappropriate comment re the term Onboarding. Mind you I have noticed the odd use of 'On-boarding' and 'On boarding' recently though it would be an up-hill struggle to overcome all those consultants who have so much invested in the Onboarding brand (Tongue firmly in cheek)! Tmol42 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm probably one of "those consultants" you're referring to since I spend my the vast majority of my waking hours thinking about and practicing onboarding. (Though we've been pretty disciplined about sticking to referencing our books in this article and not our company website - PrimeGenesis.) The use of the word onboarding keeps expanding and bleeding into other areas.  I'm hopeful this article and discussion page can continue to be a helpful source as the conversations and evolution continues.  We're currently working on the 3rd edition of our book, "The New Leader's 100-Day Action Plan", continuing to evolve our own thinking.Gbradt (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Major re-write March 2011
Kudos to "IOparty" on a superb job on re-writing this article. I think the additions of the academic research takes this to a whole new level.Gbradt (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We're actually graduate students in an organizational psychology class, and as an assignment, our professor required us to create or re-write a Wiki page on an organizational psychology topic. --IOparty 00:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You beat us to the punch! robertpersaud and I are undergrads with the exact same assignment and the exact same topic.  This has got to say something about process loss in digital environments...  At any rate, the two of us are reading through your material and are looking into ways that we can improve it even further.  Anything that your team planned on doing in the near future that we can take care of for you?  We were primarily looking into wikifying - things like converting the references into links to the article, adding images and formatting a few sections.  Best! Brianrangell (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)