From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Edit needed[edit]

"The Adhocracy is clearly positioned in an environment that is both dynamic and compex, by Henry Mintzberg" does not make sense and is not a sentence. Thx, "alyosha" 06:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


Re: suggestion to merge to "libertarian management", I don't think this concept has anything especially to do with libertarianism, so that's not an appropriate merge. Maybe some other merge destination makes sense, or a bigger article could be constructed around this and several related concepts. Phr (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't agree with merging, this is an interesting topic and one that I think could have an entire article. Just because it's not fleshed out now doesn't mean it will never be. - cohesion 05:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

current wikipedia structure?[edit]

Removed this line: "To some degree, Wikipedia's management structure is an example of an adhocracy.", as possible original research, as well as self reference. Can we back this statement up? Kim Bruning 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Projects at least would fulfill it. People join, established some structures (guidelines, task lists, votes), work and then leave or stay as it pleases them. --Error 23:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Such a statement makes me wonder where original research ends and common sense begins. Forzan (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually we can back it up: Spek et al. 2006 ([1]). There will be a better ref once I publish a paper on that in a few months, but yes - wiki is certainly very close to adhocracy.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the downsides of adhocracies?[edit]

Chaos, corruption, lack of fairness, arbitraryness, etc etc? I expect the Mafia and Somali pirates must be examples of adhocracy. These issues ought to be included in the article - currently it is one-sided. (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I'm pretty sure that the Mafia and possibly also Somali pirates have a clearly defined hierarchy, which makes them by definition not adhocracies. But if you want to find something about the downsides, just make sure you cite your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

downside example[edit]

Personal experience indicates that small teams of highly skilled IT professionals following this model of loose organization will often fail to produce high quality output. The teams suffer from most of the above downsides (chaos, lack of fairness, arbitraryness). I believe that it is due to members personal responsibility. Ad-hoc organization does not enforce responsibility as strictly, so laziness, overconfidence and egotism are harder to control. I guess what I am saying is that I think that without an overseer, the less palatable parts of a job will be overlooked and chaos and low quality will ensue. (based on experience working in modern s/w development with various s/w development methods). (dn) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

wrong origin?[edit]

According to Gareth Morgan (Images of Organization, Sage Publication, Updated Edition 2006 - p50) the origin of the term is Warren Bennis. This is supported at this web-page:, 3rd paragraph: The idea first surfaced in the work of US leadership theorist Warren G. Bennis. Writing about the company of the future in The Temporary Society (with Philip Slater in 1968), he predicted that it would rely on nimble and flexible project teams within a structure he called 'adhocracy'. The Latin phrase ad hoc means 'for this particular purpose only', though today it also conveys a sense of improvisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlingjossang (talkcontribs) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Why is he not mentioned in the main article? (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I made the edit/change to this. There is clearly documented evidence that Bennis coined the term before Tofler. Even Henry Mintzberg credits Bennis as the originator: (Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 160) (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Referenced COI[edit]

I am inclinded to revert this due to WP:COI AND the new addition being not very notable, but there are possibly third party references used. Second opinion? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Both of the cited publications are written by someone with the same name as the account who is referencing them.
Jutta (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

job specialization based on formal training?[edit]

Under "Characteristics of an adhocracy" are numerous characteristic traits, but the 3rd one jumped out at me as characteristic of Bureaucracy rather than of Adhocracy:

  • highly organic structure[3]
  • little formalization of behavior[1][3]
  • job specialization based on formal training

So I have changed it to

  job specialization not necessarily based on formal training

If someone can provide good reference(s) to the contrary, the point should still be clarified.

YodaWhat (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)