|Wikipedia CD Selection|
|Organization has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Organizing subsections
- 2 Your Feedback / Ratings
- 3 Jack Welch/NPOV
- 4 Not NPOV
- 5 Organization versus organisation
- 6 Move back to Organization
- 7 Organisation vs. Organization (a proposal)
- 8 Merging Organized
- 9 I love that...
- 10 Organization by Living systems methodologies
- 11 Organizations in Psychology
- 12 Spelling and punctuation errors, spam, or is it just me?
The paragraphs below were part of a section on organizational structure, but had been grafted into the section in a way that made it inconsistent with the topic sentence for the section. I'm putting them here till I figure out how to best reintegrate them into the article. Ms. Citizen (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Staff organization or cross-functional team
A staff helps an expert get all his work done. To this end, a "chief of staff" decides whether an assignment is routine or not. If it's routine, he assigns it to a staff member, who is a sort of junior expert. The chief of staff schedules the routine problems, and checks that they are completed.
If a problem is not routine, the chief of staff notices. He passes it to the expert, who solves the problem, and educates the staff – converting the problem into a routine problem.
In a "cross functional team", like an executive committee, the boss has to be a non-expert, because so many kinds of expertise are required.
Organization: Cyclical structure
A theory put forth by renowned scholar Stephen John has asserted that throughout the cyclical nature of one’s life organizational patterns are key to success. Through various social and political constraints within society one must realize that organizational skills are paramount to success. Stephen John suggests that emphasis needs to be put on areas such as individual/ group processes, functionality, and overall structures of institutions in order to maintain a proper organization. Furthermore, the individual's overall organizational skills are pre-determined by the processes undertaken.
|This section may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (May 2009)|
The chaordic model of organizing human endeavors emerged in the 1990s. The idea is based on a blending of chaos and order (hence "chaordic"), and originated in the work of Dee Hock and the creation of the VISA financial network. Blending democracy, complex systems, consensus decision making, co-operation and competition, the chaordic approach attempts to encourage organizations to evolve from the increasingly nonviable hierarchical, command-and-control models.
Your Feedback / Ratings
Hi - I am interested the (sociological) process through which collaborative work is generated, such as on Wikipedia articles. I noticed at the end of this article a section eliciting reader feedback / ratings. Can you please help me understand where that box came from, whether there are other articles using this template, and whether anyone is collecting rating data by article? Thank you! Buburuza (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Buburuza, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment for an explanation of the project on quality assessment. Ms. Citizen (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
A brief scan of this article reveals it to be nowhere near NPOV -- a great example: "Don't bet on it in the long term. Success outgrows the ability of the genius. There just get to be too many special cases." 'Don't bet on it?' This needs to be changed, heavily. And what's with all the exclaimation marks?
Organisation vs. Organization (a proposal)
I propose that the page be changed do a dual title "organisation - organization" or "organization - organisation"
Just because 3/4 of articles found in a search engine use "organization" is no justification to abandon the use of "organisation". It would be like saying we should pretend African Americans do not exist because 85% of Americans do not identify as such.
One can point out that the Commonwealth has 600 million people in it (1.7 billion if we include india) almost twice that of the United States. This is true even if we were to include Canada and some other members that use both spellings as part of the U.S.
The English language has one of the most diverse histories of any language in the world. Let's respect that, and the right to self-determination and international use of this language.
- While I appreciate the spirit of your proposal, the best way forward is with the status quo. Organizations from the UK or elsewhere that use the "ise' version of the word in their title should retain that in their articles and title of the pages, but all other categories and pages should reflect the international (not american) standard. Please visit the WikiProject, where we are moving towards taking a lot of action in this field. Oldsoul 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-ize is not an 'international standard', it is purely American English. There is nothing wrong with that, however if the article purports to represent anything other than American English, it is demonstrating classic NPOV. There are more countries in the world where -ise is used. The fact that they are less populous or internet penetrated than the USA should not discriminate against them being represented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Qualified No. This particular article deals with human organizations. Organizing deals will just about anything that isn't entropic - both animate and inanimate. However, it might not be a bad idea to
- rename organized to organization (titles should normally be nouns, yes?)
- rename this topic to organization (business) or organization (social)
- add see also/disambiguation links in the organizing-->organization topic
Egfrank 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd also say no on this. Just because they use the same root word doesn't mean the topics are directly related. Some guy 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I love that...
Organization by Living systems methodologies
We are trying to create an infrastructure for human interaction to take place, mainly face to face but also could be virtual, to create organizations that are living systems, not mechanical systems.
Now how do we work in open space? What kind of principles or ways of conduct do we use, that make it possible to come as fully me and yet in the same time to be totally open to others, to all sorts of others, to create a collective we.
From all the methodologies that I know that are opening space I could draw up seven principles or ways of conduct. They are weary simple.
- You are invited, you don't have to come, but you are invited.
- You are included, and what makes you included is that you wish to come.
- You are the right people, no shame, no blame, you are perfect the way you are.
- It is all done by self organization, no one is telling you what to do, you are making it happen, creating the agenda etc.
- Transparency, we do it all in transparency so we can build on the wisdom, of one and another, of layer by layer.
- We encourage and invite some multiversity and multi version, it dose not have to be in sequential or linear logic, it happens all at the same time, it is great.
- You are free at all times to be mobile, and let your legs carry you to where your heart and mind wants to be
If we are getting or putting people together and we do not insist that they must agree, then they don't have to fight and compromise. And if we take people and we allow them to move freely, that means that people can self regulate and if they had enough and they feel that the emotion is arising and they can not control it, they can go somewhere else, they can self regulate themselves and they feel no constrain. And in this way of work where individuals can be fully themselves, they become, as I can see, fully alive, and create collectives that are living systems and not mechanical or machine like systems.
Organizations in Psychology
Would it be appropriate to add a section comparable to the "In Sociology" sections that delves into organizations in psychological thought? Notwithstanding that there is already an article on Industrial and Organizational Psychology. We wouldn't want to rehash everything in the aforementioned article... Mdwilliams2 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Spelling and punctuation errors, spam, or is it just me?
Among the introductory paragraph, the following sentence appears: "It is the collection of organs of scientific methods and artifacts of the al mamater The word is derived from the Greek word organon, itself derived from the better-known word ergon which means "organ" – a compartment for a particular task." Could someone explain this to me? I think there are some spelling errors and shouldn't there be a full stop somewhere? ~thelittlegumnut [talk] 08:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)