Insightful responses discussion to my teammates

Insightful responses discussion to my teammates

Order Description

This was the question for this week discussion ;

Post your initial responses to the Learning Set Discussion Forum be sure to engage your Learning Set members with questions about the readings or the

above activities.
Your participation this week is required.  Remember that your responses will be assessed based upon the timeliness and quality of your work in your

Learning Set.  You are expected to participate substantially; specifically, you are to post at least 12 meaningful and insightful responses to your

Learning Set.  First read the students responses before respond.
Your Doctoral Tutor will look for the following contributions to the dialogue in your posts:
1.    Asking insightful questions
2.    Adding to the learning of the Set
3.    Offering contributions based upon the literature and your practice
4.    Engaging in critically collaborative inquiry
5.    Promoting critical reflection in set members
6.    Please use external sources and citation while answering responses.

Dear writer
Please know that these responses should be done in :-
1-see the yellow instructions
2- make for Each student only 1 response.
3. only 3-4 sentence should be my response for each student and not an essay.
4- use external resources in each response
4- keep the short posts to a minimum and continue .
5- please praise the student and give positive words to encourage them and do not use negative comments do not use always negative feedback against

classmates.
6-  Attach reference for each response   eg
Student 1   Hi John,
I totally agree with in that ……………………………………………………………on the other hand  it was described in (ref..)  …………… very insightful posting.
Ref:-
Dskfsdlkvfdklhvfdjfh
Student 2   hello Sylvia,
I concur with you ……………………..

Task 2

WEEK 2 LEARNING SET PARTICIPATION
The Learning Set dialogue this week will focus on further problematising your individual workplace-based problem, based on the theories and concepts

from the week’s readings.
Refer to the workplace-based problem you identified in Week 1’s Learning Set.
1.    What are the strengths and weaknesses associated with addressing your workplace-based problem using :-
i)    a scientifically rigorous or
ii)    a practically useful approach?
2.    How could evidence-based management enable you to address your workplace-based problem?
3.    Why be concerned about issues of rigour and relevance in relation to the creation of management knowledge?
4.    What are the pitfalls and problems associated with systematic review as a method of evidence-based management and what are the alternatives

to this approach?

Student 1 HAAAM
Week 2
Literature Synthesis

Is Management a Science or a Profession?
Whether management is an art, a profession or a science has been an issue of heated debate in the recent past. On one hand, some scholars

describe management as a science given the presence of well experimented and tested principles of management (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). On the other

hand, a different school of thought regard management as a profession because more practice is needed to attain full expert status (Barker, 2010).

Therefore, to comprehend if management is a science or a profession, it is important to understand the key arguments in both the scholarly and

practitioner’s point of view.
Key Arguments from Scholarly and Practitioner Point of View
Currently, the proponents that see management as a science argue that just like science, management is based on logically observed findings,

events, and facts. In evaluating who is a global manager, Bartlett and Ghoshal (2003) states that a manager is an individual that incorporates the

exact principles of science that can be verified to establish cause and effect at the workplace. As such, management should be viewed as a science

and not a profession. In addition, a recent work by Richard Barker (2010) argues that management can never be a profession.
In support, scholars such as Barker (2010) and Pfeffer and Fong (2002) argues that the move among academics to promote management as a

profession has been widely misperceived. As a leading proponent of management being a science than a profession, he argues that business schools

should not model their courses on professional statuses. This is because most schools fail to create a code of ethics that help a cadre of MBAs that

are less accountable. Mozota (2008) agrees that the analogy of management being a profession is false. In support, he argues that most managers often

turn to lawyers or doctors because they possess skills that managers lack. Barker (2010) points out that while professionals are always specialists

in their field, a manager is just a jack of all trades and master of no one. This means that the role of a manager is just indefinable, variable, and

general, and as such does not fall in the mandatory certification standards that a true professional career demands (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
On the contrary, Chapman (2004) recognizes management as a profession given that it is an occupation marked by specialized training and

knowledge, where entry is usually limited. In support of this view, a number of major features that prove management to be a profession have been

identified. Bartlett and Ghoshal (2003) argue that management is a profession because of its well defined body of knowledge. Like in any other

profession, management has a systematic body of knowledge that empowers its professionals gain specialized skills in the profession. With the large

number of subjects available in management studies, scholars are researching various business problems and developing new principles to manage the

problems (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2003). This implies that the knowledge creation process is in touch with managerial practice. In addition, Chapman

(2004) perceives management as a profession because it has restricted entry through MBA degrees and examinations. However, Barker (2010) differs with

this argument claiming that anyone can become a manager irrespective of their educational qualifications.
Other scholars such as Khurana and Nohria (2008) thinks that management is a profession because it is associated with various professional

associations. In all the professions, special associations are in place and all learners register with them. However, it is not compulsory for the

managers to register with these bodies, further casting doubts whether management is actually a profession. This is because, unlike doctors,

engineers, and nurses who have a single body that regulates their codes of practice, managers lack a central unifying body. As such, it appears that

management is more of a science than a profession.
Underlying assumptions in the articles and new insights for practice and scholarship
From the reviewed articles, some new insights emerge concerning whether management is a science or a profession. A primary theme is that some

scholars perceive management to be an art since it is a systematic body of knowledge that require creativity, skills, and practice before one can

perfect a firm’s operations (Khurana & Nohria, 2008). A number of insights have emerged in support of this argument. One, like in art, management has

evolved to have an organized and systematic body of knowledge that can help managers acquire managerial skills (Mozota, 2008). Two, as an art,

management has personalized application as theoretical knowledge alone is not enough. Every ‘artist’ in management must use personal creativity and

skill to apply the knowledge (Khurana & Nohria, 2008). Therefore, the efficiency of any manager to apply the learnt principles and theories depends

on how they differently use various approaches in diverse situations, by employing personal creativity and skills which are features of art (Pfeffer

& Fong, 2002). Three, based on individual creativity and practice, regular practice is needed just like in art to perfect one’s principles. Without

such practice managers lose their perfection in managing their organizations (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002).
Thinking and application of the review with additional resources and analyses
Though most scholars have argued that management is a science or an art depending on different hypothetical perspectives, practical and

empirical applications indicate that management is both an art, a profession, and a science (Thomas, 2006). The techniques, principles, and concepts

of management are still in the developing stage. Therefore, unlike chemistry and physics principles, the principles of management are flexible and

not hard and fast regulations of absolute truths. For this reason, Mozota (2008) calls management as a soft science where diverse disciplines come

into play from personal practice, creativity, and skills. Practical applications show that professional applications, art, and science are not in

contrast to each other, both that all the three interact and coexist together in each management function.

References
Barker, R. (2010). No, management is not a profession. Harv Bus Rev, 88(7-8), 52-60.
Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). What is a global manager? Harv Bus Rev, 81(8), 101-8.
Chapman, M. (2004). Recognising management as a profession. Engineering Management, 14(2), 28-31.
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harv Bus Rev, 86(10), 70-77.
Mozota, B. (2008). A Theoretical Model for Design in Management Science. Design Management Journal, 3(1), 30-37.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1, 78

-95.
Thomas, M. (2006). Management: a profession in theory. Management Decision, 44(3), 309-315.

Student 2 Ahhhls
Learning Set Participation
(750-900)
1. Strength and Weaknesses in Addressing cultural diversity
In addressing the challenges that come with accommodating cultural diversity at the work place, there are a number of strengths and

weaknesses that are involved. Specifically, using a scientific rigorous approach has been hampered with a number of challenges in the past studies.

Balkin and Schjoedt (2012) have reently studied the role of organizational cultural values in diversity management and reported a number of

challenges. One of the key challenges is that the cases used in the study and the scientific approach used often fail to replicate the actual

situation on the ground (Balkin & Schjoedt, 2012). For instance, as opposed to the use of a cohort study that follows a large population over a

number of years and learns how cultural diversity affects them at work, most of the studies are limited to using short-term participant groups that

only last for few months.
Cox and Blake (2011) have also found similar limitations in using group studies to scientifically explain accomodation of cultural diversity at the

workplace. As a result, this implies that the main weakness of using scientific rigor from group findings is its limited nature in being used to

tackle issues that take place outside the period of study. Davis (2009) attributes the limitation of using scientific findings to the dynamic nature

of the business environment which keeps changing from one business to the other. Other limitations of the scientific rigor are attributed to the

methodology limitations which are either simplistic or poorly suited to address the major problems of accomodating workplace diversity (Geva-May,

2002).
This implies that some of the scientific approaches in resolving cultural diversity is their lack of significant impact on the wellbeing of

the group members. Moreover, Ginsberg (2005) finds it difficult to prove how to effectively accommodate multiculturalism using a scientific approach

in motivation and differentiation at the work place. Nonetheless, despite the numerous challenges from the above studies, a number of other scholars

have expressed the usability and applicability of the scientific approach in accomodating cultural diversityin organizations.
Hagelskamp and Hughes (2014) have observed that a number of assumptions on the userbility of the scientific approach inhandling cultural diversity

are mislead and as such, they ought to be challenged. From a practical point of view, the notion that organizatonal culture overides cultural

differences among employees at the workplace is a wrong aproach that need to be addressed. Such an assumption has often cntributed to the widely held

perception and negligence that scientific rigor cannot identify and propose amicable frameworks to handle cultural diversity while accomodating

employee differences (Davis, 2009). This is to mean, scientific research is highly usiful and applicable in addressing cultural differences.
Another potential advantage of scientific approach in accomodating cultural diversity at the workplace is the fact that firms are not immune to

interpersonal conflicts. As a result, no method of research is fullly suited to address all the arising cross-cultural differences but the scientific

approach can solve a number of related challegnges (Balkin & Schjoedt, 2012). The primary advantage of the scientific rigor is that it encourages

organizations to embrace different cultures and that employees should accept the differences among groups. Such an approach can contribute to the

sharing of diverse ideas which a single cultural group may not possess.
2. How evidence-based management enable one to address workplace-based problem
Evidence-based practice can be vital in addressing workplace-based problems in a number of ways. One, it highlights the does and donts that have been

previously reported in other studies and individuals can use the same guidelines to avoid common problems and pitfalls. Two, it presents reliable and

proven methods that have been researched and found to be scientifically and empirically applicable in daily practice, which is a different perception

from hypothesis reports or hypothetical situations that have not yet been proved through experimental research (Suyemoto, 2010). Therefore,

evidence-based approach is the best approach to resolving common problems of cultural diversity using the best practices from well designed previous

occupational studies with scientific expertise,employee assessment, and the people’s individual preferences about how beeter to approach the issues

of cultural diversity in organizations.
3. Rigor and its relevance in relation to the creation of management knowledge
Rigor is of a central significance in research for a number of reasons and specifically with regard to how it contributes to management of

knowledge. The relevance of rigor rests on addressing six important questions in organizational management. One question seeks to address

institutional problems such as how to break with the past cultural differences. The second question is procedural in nature and seeks to involve

managers in research. The question of identity is important in addressing thekind of discipline employeespossess. Fourth, the philosophical question

on what can be identified from management is also important in attaining rigor in management knowledge creation. Laslty, rigor seeks to attain a

functional question on what the purspose of employees toward management practice should be.
4. Pitfalls and Problems Associated with Systematic Review in Evidence-based Practice
Some of the pitfalls of a systematic review include having inconclusive results, no evidence or trials can be made, used trials can be of

poor quality, interventions can be complex making trials difficult, and they do not change practice despite the collected evidence of effectiveness.

Altarnatively, different approaches can be used such as

References
Balkin, D., & Schjoedt, L. (2012). The role of organizational cultural values in managing diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 41(1), 44-51.
Cox, T., & Blake, S. (2011). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Executive, 5(3), 45-56.
Davis, T. (2009). Diversity Practice in Social Work: Examining Theory in Practice. Journal Of Ethnic And Cultural Diversity In Social Work, 18(1-2),

40-69.
Geva-May, I. (2002). From Theory to Practice: Policy Analysis, Cultural Bias and Organizational Arrangements. Public Management Review, 4(4), 581-

591.
Ginsberg, M. (2005). Cultural Diversity, Motivation, and Differentiation. Theory Into Practice, 44(3), 218-225.
Hagelskamp, C., & Hughes, D. (2014 ). Workplace discrimination predicting racial/ethnic socialization across African American, Latino, and Chinese

families. Cultural Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 550-560.
Suyemoto, K. (2010). Review of Intersections of multiple identities: A casebook of evidence-based practices with diverse populations. Cultural

Diversity And Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 569-570.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂