Glass Ceiling is attributed to mean the artificial hindrances that are founded on attitudinal or organizational biasness that prevents individuals who are qualified enough from getting a promotion in an organization. Women and other minority groups are discriminated against when the promotion is being considered. Women and the minorities are hence not able to acquire their aspirations considering that they are able to see their aspirations. The opportunity 2000 has been faced with this form cases making the government take efforts to sort out this issue by engaging in constructive activities with the employers (David, 1998). Glass ceiling is an issue that can be solved by offering opportunities to women where men more often take up. Just as the term professionalism has transformed, so has the meaning of management changed.
Diversity is the cradle of opportunity, be it in the employment or market. Gratitude of the fruitful mosaic of the variation in the workforce leads to group variation and assists in the creation of a surrounding where teams are able to their maximum ability. A general market method will not acquire value that is there in the diverse groups of consumers. The variety is found in age, gender, race, physical ability, and personality among others. Present government desires to offer people of varied places, but not same attributes, the chance to be represented in parliament and different places of employment. People of one gender, age, or physical shape should not be attributer with more opportunities than others but all should be given equal chances. Diversity matters are handled by getting to know the matters and hindrances that are most vital to the organization’s staff. The barriers do, however, contrast from one enterprise to another, the impact that is experienced by shutting the complete ability of its staff. These barriers continue to hinder the opportunities of the varied groups. These hindrances may be attributed to the environment like discriminating or creating stereotypes about individuals like the poor and unskilled. The internal and external hindrances are vital to the growth of the diverse groups or settings. External barriers may be better known when compared to the internal hindrances, the minorities need to more carefully evaluate and note the hindrances that they are accustomed to and work towards overcoming them.
Management came into being in the late 19th century towards 20th century. The reason as to why management did not acquire the phenomenon it has today is that a limited number of businesses that are huge were there till approximately hundred years ago. Even though management is as significant to small enterprises as it is to the big ones, big enterprises offer stimulus and venue for the management research (Delta, 2006). Another reason for the late development of management is that the fore people in the organizations were economists. The economists there initially acquired a belief that management practices are naturally effective and efficient; they hence laid more emphasis on the extreme stature of evaluation like national economic policy and organizational structures as opposed to internal frameworks of the organization.
Scientific management was the first one to be introduced and fast became a major asset in business practice. It made it possible for one to focus on one job and massive production hence affecting the business practice of America in varied ways. In the same period, a theory of classical organization, based on structuring organizations better, came to being. It is involved with the manner in which large numbers of staff and managers would be better organized into a better structure. The environment of the workers was then improved. The ages were increased, food was introduced, and the number of working period was reduced. In the 20th century, areas like psychology offered enthusiasm and employed new staff. Currently management has been far successful with organizations offering their clients proper health insurance among other benefits.
Japanese organizations are attributed to providing long-time employment, being slow in analysis and promotion, having limited specialization career pathways, using hidden control methods, performing collective decision making, collective responsibility, and having a general concern for staff. American organizations, on the other hand, are attributed to being of short period employment, fast evaluation and promotion, specialized career paths, explicit control methods, personal decision making, personal responsibility, and divided concern for the staff. There is also the Theory Z, which is integrated from the American organization attribute and the Japanese organization attribute. It adds benefit to both the American and Japanese organizations (Keys, 1994). Staff is rotated in functions, though considering that they have access to modern information and accounting facilities, they are not dominant in decision making. Explicit and implicit information and matters are present in this organization. The organization life is handled as an aspect of interdependence.
The aspect of decision making is collective but the responsibility lies in the person. The Japanese organization is believed to be supreme in its strategy, structure, and systems and it is not covered by culture and hence brought forth the thought that transformed features of the process may be properly put in place by the US organizations. The Japanese system optimized its human resources by advancing the internal labor market, producing the corporate culture that brings out group values and cooperation and the putting in place of socialization procedures for the inclusion of new staff in the organization. The companies that put in place the American structure are IBM, Procter and Gamble, as well as HP. For the Theory Z it is applied by Ouchi.