Talk:Management fad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can anyone add a redirect here if users enter the search term "Management Fads". MaxPont 14:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added that redirect now. --SueHay 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier version of this page. The section with examples was removed with a comment about "bias." That's a pretty major change. This article is well cited, and the examples provided of management fads are indeed discussed in the published literature. Let's discuss, not summarily remove. YeahIKnow 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge management fad with "Business philosophies and popular management theories"

These two articles seem to cover the same topic. I suggest a merge into this one, which is the more common term. --SueHay 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion these are two seprate topics but there should be link to Business Philosophies from Management Fad. The implication of a management fad as a short-term trend which will not survive over time or has a definite life cycle such as those whose value is eroded by competitive adoption has a quite different meaning than a business philosophy. --Stuartbridges1 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've put a link here to Business philosophies and popular management theories so you could see that the article is not especially philosophical. Business philosophy redirects to Business philosophies and popular management theories, but that's not an accurate redirect. The article doesn't address Business philosophy. --SueHay 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While these have started out as similar content both of them have value. These pages do need to be developed. As has been mentioned above - fads is a term used to mean temporary or transient - but then skateboarding is a fad!! and philosophies is more about what is going on behind an approach. I vote keep them both --82.44.147.147 (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something missing?

Looking at the examples of fads here, it strikes me that these all became "fads" (and subjects of derision and cynicism) when people started to apply them beyond industrial/production processes to much less quantifiable activities. E.g., TQM is an effective paradigm for managing the development and production of an airplane, but devolves into a collection of platitudes when applied to adminstrative or general business activities. Maybe that's the real driver to something being a fad? Is there any literature on that idea?

Psychlist (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)