Talk:Middle management

Referring to non-management roles

I disagree with how the page currently refers to non-management staff as "junior", because in my industry at least (software development), non-management roles can just just as senior as management roles. The Line management article refers to "front-line" staff, but that doesn't seem quite right to me either, because it sounds like it's referring only to customer-facing roles. I'd love a better suggestion, but if nobody has one, I'd be satisfied with "front-line". (For what it's worth "individual contributor" or IC is the preferred term at my company for people like software engineers, regardless of seniority.)

Previous Discussion (Feb 2024)

Yes, unfortunately, middle management is generally not encouraged to forward suggestions to upper management. Therefore, employees at the lower level have no obvious way to initiate improvements, unless the case is desperate and involves malfeasance, when they sometimes become whistle-blowers.

Maybe middle managers were not so important. Pdn 20:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Middle Managment are considered vital elements in any organization —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.136 (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This definition of Middle management is flawed because it is biased. The description is more of an opinion of the contributor than a definition as contained in a reputable publication such as the Oxford English Dictionary. You would be well advised to ignore this definition and keep searching the internet for a more reliable one. Maybe an administrator could remove or improve it? Howchum (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Middle management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126061429/http://www.managerperformance.co.uk/downloads/the-ambiguity-of-the-middle-manager-role.pdf to http://www.managerperformance.co.uk/downloads/the-ambiguity-of-the-middle-manager-role.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

create an account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin/signup&returntoquery=&returnto=Talk%3AMiddle_managementtalk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:223.123.51.156&action=edit&redlink=1 223.123.51.156 (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

AI in the article

Please pardon my etiquette if I'm committing a wikipedia faux pas, I created the account just now. I've spotted very blatant usage of what's likely chatgpt, and I wasn't sure if that was considered a problem over here on The Free Encyclopedia. Starting in the section "Role in an organization", the structure of the article is sharply different from most wikipedia articles, and identical to when chatgpt is asked to make a list. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a wikipedia page with bulleted lists used like that, and with such non-definitions after the words. Further down are uses of en-dashes. Not the dreaded em-dashes, sure, but very few human beings would use them; they're almost exclusively used in sources.

I don't know what the social policy for this sort of thing is, whether there's a way to flag it or whether it's my obligation to try to fix the error... The error being the entire page. And, respectfully, I am not rewriting the entire article from scratch.

I hope this sort of thing is heavily frowned upon, if you don't have the guts to ban it outright. Cyanthrope (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You are correct in assuming AI use is banned here, however looking at the page history, the content that looks to be ai slop appears to have originated in 2014, when I'm sure there were no llms.

Still, the structure is very weird and it should be cleaned up. I have no clue where to start with that, but maybe I'll take a look at it soon. Yallex82 (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)