Earlier, I proposed that language policy could usefully be analyzed as consisting of three independent but interconnected components, language practices, language beliefs or ideologies, and language management. It was also argued that failure to recognize that language policy can exist in other domains and at other levels than the nation-state, ranging from the family to international organizations was one of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of state planning efforts. From looking at a number of cases, some modifications are now suggested. First, within management, is to note the distinction between advocates (without power) and managers. Second, is to add the level of the individual, noting the importance of self-management, attempts to expand personal repertoires to enhance communication and employability. Finally, it is pointed out that even when this leads to a workable language policy, it may be blocked or hampered by non-linguistic forces such as genocide, conquest, colonization, introduced diseases, slavery, corruption and natural disasters.