The main idea of these business schools is appealing.In a world where companies must adapt to new technologies and source of competition，it is much harder than it used to be to offer good employees job security and an opportunity to climb the corporate ladder.Yet it is also more necessary than ever for employees to invest in better skills and sparkle with bright ideas.How can firms get the most out of people if they can no longer offer them protection and promotion?
Many bosses would love to have an answer.Sumantra Ghoshal of the London Business School and Christopher Bartlett of the Harvard Business School think they have one：“Employability”。If managers offer the right kinds of training and guidance，and change their attitude towards their underlings，they will be able to reassure their employees that they will always have the skills and experience to find a good job—even if it is with a different company.
Unfortunately，they promise more than they deliver.Their thoughts on what an ideal organization should achieve are hard to quarrel with：encourage people to be creative，make sure the gains from creativity are shared with the pains of the business that can make the most of them，keep the organization from getting stale and so forth.The real disappointment comes when they attempt to show how firms might actually create such an environment.At its nub is the notion that companies can attain their elusive goals by changing their implicit contract with individual workers，and treating them as a source of value rather than a cog in a machine.
The authors offer a few inspiring examples of companies——they include Motorola， 3M and ABB—that have managed to go some way towards creating such organizations.But they offer little useful guidance on how to go about it，and leave the biggest questions unanswered.How do you continuously train people，without diverting them from their everyday job of making the business more profitable? How do you train people to be successful elsewhere while still encouraging them to make big commitments to your own firm? How do you get your newly liberated employees to spend their time on ideas that create value，and not simply on those they enjoy? Most of their answers are platitudinous，and when they are not they are unconvincing.
1. We can infer from the passage that in the past an employee .
[A]had job security and opportunity of promotion
[B]had to compete with each other to keep his job
[C]had to undergo training all the time
[D]had no difficulty climbing the corporate ladder
2. According to Christopher Bartlett what will improve“employability”?
[A] Ability to lay out one‘s talents to employers.
[B]Skills and knowledge accumulated from school education.
[C] Training opportunity and guidance offered by company.
[D]Being creative and ready to share collective wisdom.
3. What does the writer of this passage think of the ideas of Ghoshal and Bartlett?
[A] Very instructive. [B] Very inspiring.
[C] Hard to implement. [D] Quite harsh.
4. In their work，Ghoshal and Bartlett discuss .
[A]changes in business organizations [B]contracts between employers and employees
[C]employment situation [D]management ideas
5.This passage seems to be a(n) .
[A]book review [B]advertisement
[C]news report [D]research paper
阅读小帮手
核心词汇
appealing adj.吸引人的 sparkle v.(使)闪耀 reassure vt.使恢复信心
stale adj.陈腐的 implicit adj.暗示的。盲从的 inspiring adj.鼓舞的
divert v.转移 profitable adj.有利可图的
文章翻译
这些商业学校的想法非常具有吸引力。在这里所有公司都必须适应新技术与竞争环境，为优秀雇员提供工作保障以及晋升的机会比以前更困难了。然而，对于雇员来讲，拥有更好的技能以及充满睿智的思想火花也比以前更有必要了。如果公司不再能够为雇员提供保障和晋升，他们如何使雇员充分发挥才能呢?
很多老板都希望有自己的答案。伦敦商学院的苏曼特拉。戈沙尔和哈佛商学院的克里斯托弗。巴特利特认为他们自己的答案是“可雇佣性”。如果经理提供正确的培训及指导，并且改变他们对下属的态度，他们将能使自己的雇员充满信心并且认为自己总是有技能、有经验、可以找到一份好工作——即使是在不同的公司。
令人遗憾的是，这些老板所做的承诺远远超出他们实际所能做到的。在有关一个完美的组织所能获得的成就上，如鼓励人们具有创造性、与公司同甘共苦、避免公司疲塌并向前发展等方面，他们无可非议。但他们在展示公司是如何创造出这样一种环境之时却令人非常失望。问题的中心在于这样一种观念：即他们认为改变与工人的合同并将其看作价值的源泉而非机器中的齿轮，来达到公司的目的。
作者提供了一些鼓舞人心的公司案例(包括摩托罗拉、3M和ABB)，这些公司都成功地创造出了这样的组织机构。但是他们很少提供有关如何运作组织的有益指导，这个最复杂的问题一直没人来回答。如何在不分散雇员对工作注意力的情况下不断地对他们加以培训，以使公司所获利润更大?如何将雇员培训为一个在任何地方都是优秀的人而又激励他们为你的公司效力?如何使思想解放的雇员将他们的时间花费在能够创造价值的想法上而不是他们所喜爱的一些念头上?这些问题的大多数答案都是老生常谈，不是老生常谈的也不具有说服力。
答案辨析
1.A推断题。由题干关键词in the past和employee定位文章第一段的it is much harder than it used to be to offer good employee job security and an opportunity to climb the corporate ladder可看出，过去一名优秀的职员很容易获得工作保障和晋升机会，结合选项可知，A正确。且由该句话可知在过去工作上的竞争并不算残酷，因此排除B(必须和别人竞争);文中并未谈到过去有什么培训，故排除C(必须总是接受培训);D(在公司获得晋升毫无不费力)过于绝对。
2.C细节题。由题干关键词Christopher Bartlett和employability定位文章第二段。该段中
employability后的内容即是对此词的解释：经理们提供正确的培训及指导，并且能够改变对下属的态度，就能使雇员总是有技能、有经验，从而可以找到一份好工作。结合选项可知，C正确。
3.C态度题。题干问作者对Ghoshal and Bartlett的观点有何看法。从第三段的Unfortunately，they promise more than they deliver…(令人遗憾的是，他们所做的承诺远远超出他们实际所能做到的)以及下文提到的The real disappointment comes…可以看出，作者对Ghoshal和Bartlett的观点不以为然，认为这两个人许诺的比实际提供的要多，可见作者认为他们的观点不切实际，故选C.
4.D推断题。文中提到，Ghoshal和Bartlett不仅讨论了企业的组织形式，还讨论了企业应该提供给员工一个创新的环境，以及对企业员工进行培训和管理，最后达到企业发展的目的。因此用“企业管理”来概括他们的观念最为合适，选项中A过于片面，B只是简单提到，C过于宽泛，只有D最符合题意。
5.A推断题。判断此题的关键在最后一段，由该段首句The author offers a few example of companies…but they offer little useful guidance…中的关键词the author可推知，本文属于书评，故应选A.
发表于 2016-8-9 08:07:14