Talk:Warren Bennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warren Bennis article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Erhard content is very out of place. It is inaccurate in the manner in which implies a much greater place in Bennis' career than is the case.128.125.59.26 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All information within the article is backed up with sourced citations from reputable secondary sources. Smee 04:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reason for the Edits of EST section

I appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually alerted to the material on Werner Erhard by Warren Bennis himself, who happens to be the step-father of my wife. He was incredulous that a big section of his biography in Wikipedia was on Werner Erhard, and that much of it seemed to have been written for another entry, as Warren Bennis was cited within the flow as of the section as another figure involved with Erhard's work. I asked Warren Bennis what was a proportional amount of his biography that should be devoted to Erhard and EST, and he said "none." I note that Warren Bennis is a friend of Erhard's, and does not distance himself from that relationship in any way- it just that a man who has written over 2 dozen books, was president of a major university, is arguably the most important expert on leadership in the world, advised Jack Welch, Howard Schultz, Sidney Harman, Al Gore, and Leslie Wexler, to name a few, should not have a large section of a rather short biography that is focused on his opinions about EST rather than on him. If the material seems important to preserve, I suggest it be moved to the Werner Erhard section, where it might be seen as adding another important point of view about EST.

I am sorry I deleted the section before discussion; I just read the section about disputes. I am a huge supporter of Wikipedia, and think it is one of the best resources on the Internet. I know Dr. Bennis feels, in the scope of his work, his relationship with Erhard and EST is not of significance importance. He is an extremely fair-minded and thoughtful academic- the point is not making his entry to his liking, it is making it representative of his work and life.

I could see a mention with a link to the Erhard entry, but beyond that is seems  unbalanced.

I look forward to you response.JNEA 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Smee- The issue with the Erhard information is not whether you obtained the material from a reputable source. Bennis has given dozens of interviews on muliple topics. The section appears to have been researched and written for an entry on Erhard, not Bennis, not only in its focus but its language as well. This is clear in the following excerpt: "Another scholar who knows Erhard well is Warren Bennis."

I am refraining from deleting the section again for now, as I read in the dispute section the suggestion to focus on working through a resolution through discussion, and I agree with it. Also, I see that you seem to take a reasonable position in your other disputes.

What do you think of moving the material to the Erhard entry?

JNEA 06:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • For starters, why don't you start by adding material backed up by citations in reputable secondary sources in other areas of the individual's life to the article, to balance out imbalances that you see. Everything else that you say above is both unverifiable and against something on Wikipedia called Wikipedia:No Original Research, unless you can back it up with reputable secondary source citations. Smee 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


If I had put the material I discussed in the article, I certainly would have cited it. I was just providing it as background information for a discussion. I am hoping to engage in a cooperative process of making the article better. Could you read over the Erhard section as written and let me know your thoughts? I think it belongs in a piece about Erhard, and adds little to informing a reader about Bennis. JNEA 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Those sections are cited already. Why don't you first go ahead and add reputable citations to the other extraneous information you have added to the article? If citations are not added soon, those sections will be deleted. Thanks. Smee 05:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third paragraph

"O’Toole observed that Bennis challenged the prevailing wisdom by showing that humanistic, democratic-style leaders better suited to dealing with the complexity and change that characterize the leadership environment". I'm finding it hard to make sense of this sentence. What about, "O’Toole observed that Bennis challenged the prevailing wisdom by showing that humanistic, democratic-style leaders are better suited to dealing with the complexity and change that characterizes the leadership environment."? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.12.69 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to Bennis and O'Toole

Bennis and O'Toole's paper in the HBR has attracted a lot of attention. I recommend the following two papers that have provided a scholarly response to a central issue raised by Bennis and O'Toole: the making of decisions in the absence of clear facts. The references are below:

Georgiou I (2006) Managerial effectiveness from a system theoretical point of view. Systemic Practice and Action Research 19(5): 441-459

Georgiou I (2008) Making decisions in the absence of clear facts. European Journal of Operational Research. 185(1): 299-321 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.98.244 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)