Talk:Organizational behavior management
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Organizational behavior management article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Simonecedotal.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Organizational Behavior Management → Organizational behavior management –
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Yet another management "Buzz phrase" well suited to downcasing. Capitalising it in a book title doesn't mean the term supposed to be in upper case in 'normal usage'. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CAPS. Jenks24 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
PROD
editWell, I don't think deleting this article will bring a lot of harm, although some could be merged into organizational behavior (the standard name of the wider discipline). Pundit|utter 15:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Taylorism/SciMan and OBM
edit"OBM might be seen as one of the distant branches of scientific management, originally inspired by Taylor.[12] The principle difference between scientific management and OBM might be on the conceptual underpinnings: OBM is based on B.F. Skinner's science of human behavior.[13]"
I think this paragraph amounts to original research. Nothing in Skinner's work suggests that it was inspired by Taylor's work, and it's expansion to the workforce seems to be more the logical conclusion of effective applied techniques (i.e. ABA). --florkle (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"Although OBM....
editMrm, it doesn't matter if the sentence, "Although OBM is related to industrial and organizational psychology (I/O psychology), because it is a behavioral field, the historical precursors of I/O psychology are only chronological precursors and not causal precursors," was in the article a long time or a short time. It is a poor sentence. We all have written poor sentences at times. Such sentences should be removed or edited to be made better. Asserting that the sentence was in the article for a long time does not justify its remaining in the article. Iss246 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not write the sentence. There are many errors throughout this article. I think that sentence was perhaps poorly written but still good enough to refine while keeping the point that editor was making. I will therefore try and refine it. Is that okay with you? Or do you object to the sentyence for some other reason that part of it was poorly written? Mrm7171 (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- I cannot judge a sentence until I read it. A sentence on the relation of OBM and i/o Ψ belongs further down b/c we should not confuse the uninitiated reader regarding the territory covered by OBM and i/o. Iss246 (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- This [1] was the other editor's long standing sentence you just deleted iss246. They made an excellent point in my opinion, even if the last part of the sentence was poorly written as you say? and it was in the history section, which is also appropriate, for this particular article at least. Will correct grammar, simplify a couple of words and add it back into the history section then. That was the reason you deleted it wasn't it? There are other more poorly written sentences in the article too?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
edit This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 May 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): April Sala (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Zafomby, LaDonna205, AddieGrace, Ddmiller12, Jkp0103, Corri123.
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)