Talk:Proactivity

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organizations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This meagre discussion could without loss of content be subsumed under the "management" heading of proactive. As discussed there, the restriction of meaning to "contrary of reactive" is quite a misunderstanding. -- Kku (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Martin's Opinion —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merging under a single Web page is a food for thought. However, caution should be exercised to avoid confusing readers. It is common and frequently healthy for disciplines to borrow from each other and evolve in different directions. Proactive Thinking has evolved beyond its narrow psychological roots and workplace references cited in Proactive Behavior. Its focus is on strategy and governance in complex issues facing all four levels of social systems: individuals, teams, organizations and communities; as i have indicated in the substantive material added today to further illustrate the framework originally sumamrized by Umberto Wyatt. As for the syllogism Proactivity, it has been the subject of debate among management scientists, Gestalists and other psychologists because being Proactive is anything but pro activity, as any decision-maker approached random may tell you. Merging both pages could further confuse readers with an overly lengthy article containing a hefty dose of syllogisms. I would suggest bidirectional links but I am only one opinion. I welcome other ideas and would gladly respond, with time permitting.

P.S.: I am sorry to assert that contrary to Ms/Mr. Kku comment that the restriction of meaning of proactive as "contrary of reactive" is indeed mistakenly well entrenched in the real world. I would gladly go deeper into this if you like, but just take a quick acid test by searching, under all words, for proactive and reactive. The response is a staggering 1,390,000 pages, reflecting a real misunderstanding in the public mindset. As an educator and advisor to business, government and NGOs, I constantly remind my audiences and interlocutors to look beyond the proactive/reactive defacto myopia, to be more innovative and search for roads less travelled.

Alain Martin