Register now or log in to join your professional community.
(e.g. a medical doctor to manage a hospital, an engineer to manage a plant, a chemist or pharmacist to manage a drugs company..etc). Knowing that all headed towards completing an MBA degree to be able to held such positions and that all will manage multi functional activities and teams from a managerial view.
Why should companies concern themselves with diversity? Until recently, many managers answered this question with the assertion that discrimination is wrong, both legally and morally. But today managers are voicing a second notion as well. A more diverse workforce, they say, will increase organizational effectiveness. It will lift morale, bring greater access to new segments of the marketplace, and enhance productivity. In short, they claim, diversity will be good for business.
Yet if this is true—and we believe it is—where are the positive impacts of diversity? Numerous and varied initiatives to increase diversity in corporate America have been under way for more than two decades. Rarely, however, have those efforts spurred leaps in organizational effectiveness. Instead, many attempts to increase diversity in the workplace have backfired, sometimes even heightening tensions among employees and hindering a company’s performance.
This article offers an explanation for why diversity efforts are not fulfilling their promise and presents a new paradigm for understanding—and leveraging—diversity. It is our belief that there is a distinct way to unleash the powerful benefits of a diverse workforce. Although these benefits include increased profitability, they go beyond financial measures to encompass learning, creativity, flexibility, organizational and individual growth, and the ability of a company to adjust rapidly and successfully to market changes. The desired transformation, however, requires a fundamental change in the attitudes and behaviors of an organization’s leadership. And that will come only when senior managers abandon an underlying and flawed assumption about diversity and replace it with a broader understanding.
Most people assume that workplace diversity is about increasing racial, national, gender, or class representation—in other words, recruiting and retaining more people from traditionally underrepresented “identity groups.” Taking this commonly held assumption as a starting point, we set out six years ago to investigate its link to organizational effectiveness. We soon found that thinking of diversity simply in terms of identity-group representation inhibited effectiveness.
Organizations usually take one of two paths in managing diversity. In the name of equality and fairness, they encourage (and expect) women and people of color to blend in. Or they set them apart in jobs that relate specifically to their backgrounds, assigning them, for example, to areas that require them to interface with clients or customers of the same identity group. African American M.B.A.’s often find themselves marketing products to inner-city communities; Hispanics frequently market to Hispanics or work for Latin American subsidiaries. In those kinds of cases, companies are operating on the assumption that the main virtue identity groups have to offer is a knowledge of their own people. This assumption is limited—and limiting—and detrimental to diversity efforts.
What we suggest here is that diversity goes beyond increasing the number of different identity-group affiliations on the payroll to recognizing that such an effort is merely the first step in managing a diverse workforce for the organization’s utmost benefit. Diversity should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring.
Managerial positions require management background, and candidate who apply for such positions should have background in how to handle managerial situation and deal with difficult situations, in addition they must have experience/knowledge in the required field (Pharmacy, chemistry ..etc)
Managerial positions involve critical and professional behaviors, therefore people for such positions must be ready to effectively handle responsibilities !
Thank You
Apologized for the answer, I do not know the answer Leave for the professionals.
A manager is a person in an organization who is responsible for carrying out the four functions of management, including planning, organizing, leading and controlling. You will notice that one of the functions is leadership, so you might ask yourself if it would be safe to assume that all managers are leaders. Theoretically, yes - all managers would be leaders if they effectively carry out their leadership responsibilities to communicate, motivate, inspire and encourage employees towards a higher level of productivity. However, not all managers are leaders simply because not all managers can do all of those items just listed. An employee will follow the directions of a manager for how to perform a job because they have to, but an employee will voluntarily follow the directions of a leader because they believe in who they are as a person, what they stand for and for the manner in which they are inspired by their leader. A manager becomes a manager by virtue of their position, and subordinates will follow the manager because of his or her job description and title. Because managers are responsible for carrying out the four functions of management, their primary concern is to accomplish organizational goals. Managers get paid to get things done in organizations. As such, the manager is accountable for themselves as well as the behavior and performance of his or her employees. A manager has the authority and power to hire, promote, discipline and fire employees based on those behaviors and performance. Management is about efficiency and getting results though systems, processes, procedures, controls and structure.
The greatest separation between management and leadership is that leaders do not have to hold a management position. That is, a person can become a leader without a formal title. Any individual can become a leader because the basis of leadership is on the personal qualities of the leader. People are willing to follow the leader because of who he or she is and what the leader stands for, not because they have to due to the authority bestowed onto him or her by the organization. The leader will show passion and personal investment in the success of his or her followers reaching their goals, which may be different from organizational goals. A leader has no formal, tangible power over their followers. Power is awarded to the leader on a temporary basis and is contingent upon the leader's ability to continue to motivate and inspire followership. Notice the shift in terminology here: managers have subordinates, while leaders have followers. Subordinates do not have a choice but to listen to the demands and wishes of their managers, but following is (and always will be) a voluntary choice for those who follow a leader.
For that case we have probation period then we judge if this person is elligible in this position or not
wait expert answers on this field
What I think must be distinguished here is the individual's intrinsic expertise in management. It is true that a doctor or engineer may be able to "manage", but the term management must not be used loosely. Management could involve a host of aspects like finance, profits, losses, marketing, sales, economics, etc which not every one without at least a proper study or some experience in this field has the ability to easily possess. I believe management is a separate discipline in itself, just as doctors and engineers have their own discipline.
Do you need help in adding the right keywords to your CV? Let our CV writing experts help you.
