Talk:Flat organization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Audreyann72, H.k.d.29, Mrk34, Jherrera94. Peer reviewers: HuzaniJ, Danzy2317, Tbcl16, Nkh2, Kellyhphan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Intriguing, people!
The idea of a truely flat organization is one that's quite intriguing to me. It was discussed in Thomas Friedman's ever-popular "The World is Flat" and that basically stands as it's manifesto.

However, it is actually a rare occurrence to actually see something like this working in the modern age.

To date, I know of 2 companies that work this way and both are major players in their locale and in their field. I would like to flush this artice out a bit more with some info on the Friedman book and some examples, perhaps referenced articles too?, and links modern day companies following this path.

However I would like to clear this by others and the wikipedia mods before I spend any time on it. --Cpfa eljefe 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So-called "Leaderless" organisations with rotating leaders
I find it amusing that organisations that are described by reliable third-party sources as "leaderless" etc., in fact have rotating team leads (not to mention CEOs!). This reminds me of anarchist theory, which also talks about leaderlessness but then allows for the possibility of temporary, rotating leadership (if I remember correctly). To me this is somewhat contradictory, but I haven't encountered a source which talks about this yet.--greenrd (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Will be making some edits soon! - Fall 2015, Public Personnel Administration, Dr. Hanks, Team Unillamas
The existing Wikipedia article on “flat organizations” provides a very basic overview of the organizational structure by defining the term, and presenting brief arguments in favor of and against the structure. It includes a hefty amount of information on self-managing teams, and provides examples of companies that have implemented that type of team structure. The article concludes with a section devoted to criticism of the flat organization structure, and with references to further readings.

Within the introduction, it explains how flat organization has few or no managerial but has no citations to support the background for this. With this type of information, citations would be better to have to have proof of that definition. Also for what it explains, such as how it benefits employment improvements, and where it’s used. It also does not seem to be well organized or per say it has quite bit of information at the beginning and that can be overwhelming if not correctly organized.

In the current article, the subtopic self-managing teams it gives quite a bit of examples, however one, Software Mill, should be deleted. We have a suggestion to do a case study of GitHub Inc. and Value to show successful examples of self-managing teams and what environment they can work well in. Also when explaining different examples its better not to use allocation in two different examples does not mean someone will immediately understand what it is. And when allocation is over explained, and simply clicking on the word will take someone to the Wikipedia page where it is fully explained. To back up the case studies, information can be added that explain the positive aspects of flat organization and support it.

The next section is related business concepts, which we will move to the end of the article. The goal in this subtopic is to relate the topic to flat organization, because without mentioning why this matters or why it’s important, why would it be relevant to the topic at hand.

A crucial part for the article is the criticism subtopic; we will make this a heading instead of a subheading. The plan is to incorporate the same amount of criticism as praise so it does not seem like favoritism on parts, negative or positive. At the end of the article there is a sentence, “In 2014, GitHub introduced a layer of middle management”, hold no standing of a criticism, its purely a statement or fact of a business decision to introduce a middle layer. It has no explanation, so either we would remove it or find evidence of why it introduced that layer. Another sentence is left without backup or citations to give evidence to the statement of, “However … that an effective HR department could resolve these issues within a flat organization”. Once again we would either remove the sentence or backed up with citations. Also that could be included in this subtopic is how other organizations or methods that lack compared to this or how flat organization can be better than others or vice versa.

Currently there is only one external link, however group members have found others that will help broaden the knowledge of the topic. In a way that these will help improve not only the topic but the subtopic within and give better understanding and more meaning to the topic/subtopic. The overall flat organization article does provide information however the information is lacking. The information that is present does not have reliable resources or reliable citations to back it up, which leaves the article quality in less value. There are many things that can be added to the article such as citations, more in depth information, examples to clarify that we would add as a group. The article does have potential and can be improved into the right direction, and external links that have been found to help improve. H.k.d.29 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review by Nikki Herrera (nkh2)
Wikipedia Principle #1: Comprehensiveness

The content of the article itself overall is great. The structure makes the key points apparent such as the structure of Flat Organization, benefits, and examples of self-managing terms. The lead section is clear and a general overview of the page. The information for the topic is appropriate but more elaboration can help especially in the criticisms section. With the current information, they focus on the topic of Flat Organization and provide relevant references and citations. Their information is backed up with scholarly support such as books, topics, and journals that complement the topic. The contribution to the article includes over 8 sources from different years and media outlets. The sources don’t only have one side of view but rather a variety of opinions.

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

As stated above, the article includes at least two references for each section except for “Related Business Concepts”. This provides the reader the opportunity to check the content but gather more information if desired. When using terms or authors, sources were always present. The article demonstrates credibility with the usage of numerous sources. The article doesn’t reflect un-sourced opinions or statements that deter from the topic.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Neutrality is stated and provides an informative piece rather than an opinionated one. Throughout the article, some statements seem more opinion based than research but it is not that apparent. With lots of references, it seems to avoid stating contested assertions as facts. Each section seems appropriate in material and size for the subheading.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

Compared to the previous article, the revisions are well written and revised. The article demonstrated proofreading and creating a structure of clear language. The article has subheadings and bolded sections. There is no diagrams or pictures but it isn’t needed for the topic. The article follows the formatting of Wikipedia and done correctly.

Open-ended feedback Questions--Open-ended Questions

This article has made distinctions of key points for the topic and for each section the article goes into more detail and depth than just general information. The usage of authors and studies helps make the article more credible and the presence of proofreading is apparent. This article was written with attention to detail and content.

The only improvements needed would to add some citations to the "Related Business Concepts" and proofread one more time to avoid making statements into facts and adding writers opinion.

nkh2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.184.232 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review by Sean Danzy
Wikipedia Principle #1: Comprehensiveness

The content of the article overall is very extensive and well done. There is an appropriate amount of self-managing examples, terms, and other issues that make the article better. The lead section is easy to understand and gives a general overview of the page. The information for the topic was also average and easy to understand. They use various books, journal, books, topics, and articles to support the information provided. The citation and references used within the piece seem appropriate and accurate.

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

As stated above, the article includes at least two references for each section except for “Related Business Concepts”. This provides the reader the opportunity to check the content but gather more information if desired. When using terms or authors, sources were always present. The article demonstrates credibility with the usage of numerous sources. The article doesn’t reflect un-sourced opinions or statements that deter from the topic.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

This piece does an excellent job of establishing both fields of opinions. Both sides are extensively expressed and neutrality is maintained. Each section also seems appropriate in regards to the size and titling.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

The piece was very readable and was an easy read. The word content was appropriate and had unnecessary elaborations. The article has subheadings and bolded sections. There are no diagrams or pictures but it isn’t quite necessary for this subject.

Open-ended feedback Questions--Open-ended Questions

Overall this was a very well done article. The editors did an excellent job of attention to detail and used the citations and references in the piece to make there article and points creditable.

Informative article
This article looks to be quite detailed and informative for someone looking for information on the topic.Bobcatdodger25 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article evaluation
This article has some merit in presenting different aspect related to flat organization, like the “self-managing teams” section.

On the surface, the article looks great and clean. There were many internal links that really pop out on the page. However, there are still a few mishaps in citations. Not only are there a few missed citations, but under the reference section, I noticed that the same article was cited 5 times. The more appropriate way to cite is to only have it referenced once in the references section, and having the in-article citations be linked to the one reference in superscript. Having the referenced linked five times, the in-text citations falsely give the image of having a more broad research base. Getting those mishaps in citations and other edits, will tremendously improve this page. Also, for the sake of neutrality, I believe that the organization of the article should be re-evaluted. Perhaps, having the benefits and criticisms be right besides each other. Hap22 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article has some strengths but also weakness as well. The first thing I noticed is that the sources and references are way out of date, about half of the citations are from 1972, another issue with this source is that they reference it five times, instead of just listing it once and reusing it. The outline needed to flow better one way, placing the sub-heading of criticism after the sub-heading of benefits. It allows for a better understanding of what exactly a flat organization is. One thing I would suggest is in the definition of what a flat organization is, I do not think it is necessary to talk about tall organizations, or maybe you could address that later on in the article, but it being at the beginning is confusing and unclear about what a flat organization is. I am not sure if there is a reason for the related business concepts. I think a better way to bring those topics up, is to use one sentence and list them, and then attach them to other wikipedia pages and links. Source number thirteen is not even a complete citation, but rather just wrote whatever they thought was needed. This could be plagiarism, and is unprofessional. Abtrahan (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article give me insight on a previously unfamiliar topic. The format is very clean and has a professional appearance. However, there were a couple of things that stood out to me when evaluating the writing. For starters, the piece of work cited most often dates back to 1972. A lot can change in over 40 years. I think that some of this information could have been substituted for more recent information. Additionally, I would consider including different sources in the first two paragraphs. The same information, from the same book is listed and there were only two different pages cited. Adding another source, or even a more current source, would establish more credibility to trust that you are properly explaining flat organization.Braelyn01 (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits
Citations needed in "Benefits" section. Also, the area that says "examples of companies with self-managing teams include" maybe should have been developed into its own section. Abbysinc (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation of Flat Organization
Before reading the Flat Organization Wikipedia article, I had no idea what a Flat Organization was. This article offers an in depth explanation of flat organization and a great definition. While the definition and explanation has been explained well, I think it may be helpful to new readers if the "criticisms and benefits" section were combined to give the article more substance. The ending was a bit harsh and by adding benefits it may soothe the fear of participating in a flat organization. The "real world" examples are quite useful and I have a better understanding of Flat Organization after reading this article that includes reliable resources. Blm113 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
I feel that there needed to be more details when explaining managerial responsibilities under "Organizational Structure". It also seems like the information provided only explains one view. Some of the wording and sentence structures could flow better to allow for a broader range of readers to understand information. Also, I found that the sources used were repetitive, and weren't current. Many of the sources were not reliable or scholarly sources.Mn1070 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well structured, could use more details
The article is well structured and provides adequate context. The lead is very strong and quickly provides a general definition of flat organizations. Because of the article's clear structure and sub headings, it is easy to follow and "skim" for readers who are just looking to get an overview. It is also pretty much balanced and uses mostly neutral content, offering both sides.

The "Criticisms" of flat organizations section could use greater explanation of the different sources used. Some criticisms or downfalls of the system could be taken from the "Self-managing teams" section and moved to "Criticisms" to better organize the article, such as the possibility of rubber-stamping projects without a middle management team.

Although most sources are reliable, the addition of sources that echo the statements as well or a greater variety of sources would make the article stronger. Tarapohlmeyer (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
Overall a decent article, however there are a few issues. The main one deals with the articles sources. Nearly half of the sources listed are taken from two pages of a single book. By relying so much on a single source your information becomes more one sided, which leads to bias within the article. Then some of the other sources used are not reliable sources. Popular websites and magazines contain high amounts of bias and can be unreliable information. My suggestion would be to bring in more scholarly articles and books on the subject. By doing that, it will become much easier to add detail about the subject, and remove any bias that may be present. (Charlesvonrosenberg5 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

Article Evaluation
The article overall was simple and easy to read. The article however lacked detailed information on some of the topics and majority of its sources are cited in one book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elm86 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation- Jake Wiggins
Overall, the article does a fairly good job remaining neutral and is easy to read. The most glaring problem I can see from evaluating this article the lack of diversity in the sources. Most of the cites for this page come from two pages in a single book that was written over 30 years ago. . I feel that adding newer and more diverse sources would improve this from a stub or starting entry to an a-class or possibly even "featured article". The only other thing I would consider changing is increasing some of the detail in under the "criticisms" header so as to limit any confusion on the topic and give a more in depth explanation to the limits or downsides of flat organizations. wiggins_jake 07:47, 21 Februrary 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggins jake (talk • contribs)

Article Evaluation
Overall the article has potential. It needs more information in certain areas like in the criticisms. Resources are the biggest problem. There are not enough resources, they lack diversity, are outdated, not as credible/bias, and most importantly not academic sources. Just fixing the resources are a big help to the article. Van rod94 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
This article has great and important sections that enable readers to understand the meaning of flat organization. There was also sufficient information provided. The introduction could have been a little more clear and more examples could be useful. Overall, it was an easy article to follow especially for those who don't have much background in what flat organization means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R r338 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
The content of this article could be easily expanded and improved. The structure of this article looks clean and neat, but it seems like each section could contain a little bit more information. While I recognize the difficulty in finding credible and available sources to cite, perhaps using more current resources rather than ones from over 30 years ago could help expand the content of the article. This article effectively communicates what Flat Organization is, but could use further clarification and details. Overall, this article could use improvement but is functional and serves its purpose of providing basic knowledge of Flat Organization. Abbysinc (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)