Talk:The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People/Archives/2018
This is an archive of past discussions about The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FALSE STATEMENT in the "First things first"
The article says: "Priority should be given in the following order:
1) Important and Urgent 2) Important and not Urgent 3) Not Important and Urgent 4) Not Important and not Urgent"
If I remember correctly, Covey underlines that the best leaders, in fact, put most of their attention to quadrant 2 (Important and not Urgent). This way the important stuff never becomes urgent. I.e. she can truly be a proactive leader instead of just constantly "putting out fires". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.59.206.179 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Another vote for a Criticism section
And it reads like an advert or publisher's blurb. --78.147.28.172 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree --Thesoupnzi (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- The opening says the book was first published in 1939, when the author would have been a child. I'm thinking the correct date is 1989, as it is in the information column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.185.217 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- How is this article even close to NPOV?! It reads like an advertisement. The guy couldn't even come up with a sensical definition of proactive, for Pete's sake!66.170.219.136 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I also want to vote for a criticism section. I recently was forced to study this in a mandatory work environment. I would like to see criticisms on this training. It makes the claim of life changing results, and a high degree of efficacy yet I have not seen any empirical data to support any of these claims. I would like to see a section regarding this. I would also like to see a section on coveys business model which involves licensing it to large corporations, regardless of its unsubstantiated claims(lack of empirical data on performance improvements). The content has developed a religious following and relies on the same faith based logic.-DH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.82.120.230 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Adamant refusal
Covey adamantly refuses to conflate principles and values ...
This is verging on puff language. In my own notes, I reworded this as "rigidly separates". In my private lexicon, this is at most sadly pejorative, because this brand of instrumental fixity almost invariably comes to a sad end, once systems theory presents the grand tally.
Here on Wikipedia, surely there's a suitably neutral phrase that splits the difference. — MaxEnt 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Fascinating use of language. I have toned it down from "adamantly refuses to conflate" to "deliberately and mindfully separating" (with some other minor tweaks to make it flow better). Davidjcmorris Talk 01:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: The decision has been made to keep the related image. When I uploaded the image, for some reason I could not then add it to this page, so it looked (to all intents and purposes) as it if were an orphan image. Once I had successfully added it to this page, and explain on the deletion discussion, all was OK. Davidjcmorris Talk 17:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)