题目内容
Selection to participate in a top executive-education program is an important rung on the ladder to top corporate jobs. U. S. corporations (1) billions of dollars in this form of management development -- and use it to (2) and train fast-track managers. Yet one (3) of executive education found that less than 5% of the managers (4) to these high-profile programs are women -- and minorities are terribly (5) as well.The numbers are (6) . In regular business (7) usually paid for by the participant, not an employer -- there are plenty of women and minorities. Women, for example, (8) for about 30% of MBA candidates. Yet in the (9) programs paid for by corporations that round out a manager’s credentials at a (10) career point, usually at age 40 or 45, companies are making only a (11) investment in developing female and minority executives. A case (12) point: Only about 30% of the 180 executives in Stanford’s recent (13) management program were women.Most companies say these days they are (14) hiring and promoting women and minorities-- and there are some (15) trends in overall employment and pay levels so why are companies (16) the ball when it (17) executive education The schools (18) that they are neither the cause of nor the cure for the problem. A Harvard Business School dean figures that companies are (19) of sending their female executives (20) they don’t want to lose them to competitors. 3（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Selection to participate in a top executive-education program is an important rung on the ladder to top corporate jobs. U. S. corporations (1) billions of dollars in this form of management development -- and use it to (2) and train fast-track managers. Yet one (3) of executive education found that less than 5% of the managers (4) to these high-profile programs are women -- and minorities are terribly (5) as well.The numbers are (6) . In regular business (7) usually paid for by the participant, not an employer -- there are plenty of women and minorities. Women, for example, (8) for about 30% of MBA candidates. Yet in the (9) programs paid for by corporations that round out a manager’s credentials at a (10) career point, usually at age 40 or 45, companies are making only a (11) investment in developing female and minority executives. A case (12) point: Only about 30% of the 180 executives in Stanford’s recent (13) management program were women.Most companies say these days they are (14) hiring and promoting women and minorities-- and there are some (15) trends in overall employment and pay levels so why are companies (16) the ball when it (17) executive education The schools (18) that they are neither the cause of nor the cure for the problem. A Harvard Business School dean figures that companies are (19) of sending their female executives (20) they don’t want to lose them to competitors. 4（）
The discovery of life beyond Earth would transform not only our science but also our religions, our belief systems and our entire world-view. For in a sense, the search for extraterrestrial life is really a search for ourselves--who we are and what our place is in the grand sweep of the cosmos.Contrary to popular belief, speculation that we are not alone in the universe is as old as philosophy itself. The essential steps in the reasoning were based on the atomic theory of the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus. Yet philosophy is one thing, filling in the physical details is another. Although astronomers increasingly suspect that biofriendly planets may be abundant in the universe, the chemical steps leading to life remain largely mysterious.Traditionally, biologists believed that life is a freak--the result of a zillion-to-one accidental concatenation of molecules. It follows that the likelihood of its happening again elsewhere in the cosmos is infinitesimal. This viewpoint derives from the second law of thermodynamics, which predicts that the universe is dying--slowly and inexorably degenerating toward a state of total chaos. And similar reasoning applies to evolution. According to the orthodox view, Darwinian selection is utterly blind. Any impression that the transition from microbes to man represents progress is pure chauvinism of our part. The path of evolution is merely a random walk through the realm of possibilities.If this is right, there can be no directionality, no innate drive forward; in particular, no push toward consciousness and intelligence. Should Earth be struck by an asteroid, destroying all higher life-forms, intelligent beings would almost certainly not arise next time around. There is, however, a contrary view--one that is gaining strength and directly challenges orthodox biology. It is that complexity can emerge spontaneously through a process of self- organization. If matter and energy have an inbuilt tendency to amplify and channel organized complexity, the odds against the formation of life and the subsequent evolution of intelligence could be drastically shortened.Historically, Bertrand Russell argued that a universe under a death sentence from the second law of thermodynamics rendered human life ultimately futile. All our achievements, all our struggles, "all the noonday brightness of human genius," as he put it, would, in the final analysis, count for nothing if the very cosmos itself is doomed. But what if, in spite of the second law of thermodynamics, there can be systematic progress alongside decay For those who hope for a deeper meaning or purpose beneath physical existence, the presence of extraterrestrial life-forms would provide a spectacular boost, implying that we live in a universe that is in some sense getting better and better rather than worse and worse. On the possibilities of life beyond Earth astronomers’ and ancient philosophers’ views are（）
For more than a decade, the prevailing view of innovation has been that little guys had the edge. Innovation bubbled up from the bottom, from upstarts and insurgents. Big companies didn’t innovate, and government got in the way. In the dominant innovation narrative, venture-backed start-up companies were cast as the nimble winners and large corporations as the sluggish losers.There was a rich vein of business-school research supporting the notion that innovation comes most naturally from small-scale outsiders. That was the headline point that a generation of business people, venture investors and policy makers took away from Clayton M. Christensen’s 1997 classic, The Innovator’s Dilemma, which examined the process of disruptive change.But a shift in thinking is under way, driven by altered circumstances. In the United States and abroad, the biggest economic and social challenges—and potential business opportunities—are problems in multifaceted fields like the environment, energy and health care that rely on complex systems.Solutions won’t come from the next new gadget or clever software, though such innovations will help. Instead, they must plug into a larger network of change shaped by economics, regulation and policy. Progress, experts say, will depend on people in a wide range of disciplines, and collaboration across the public and private sectors."These days, more than ever, size matters in the innovation game," said John Kao, a former professor at the Harvard business school and an innovation consultant to governments and corporations. In its economic recovery package, the Obama administration is financing programs to generate innovation with technology in health care and energy. The government will spend billions to accelerate the adoption of electronic patient records to help improve care and curb costs, and billions more to spur the installation of so-called smart grids that use sensors and computerized meters to reduce electricity consumption.In other developed nations, where energy costs are higher than in the United States, government and corporate projects to cut fuel use and reduce carbon emissions are further along. But the Obama administration is pushing environmental and energy conservation policy more in the direction of Europe and Japan. The change will bolster demand for more efficient and more environmentally friendly systems for managing commuter traffic, food distribution, electric grids and waterways.These systems are animated by inexpensive sensors and ever-increasing computing power but also require the skills to analyze, model and optimize complex networks, factoring in things as diverse as weather patterns and human behavior. Big companies like General Electric and IBM that employ scientists in many disciplines typically have the skills and scale to tackle such projects. Big companies have the advantage of（）
可损伤胃粘膜
微信支付 
支付宝支付