考生在备考
. “The most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This way, each worker completes a small portion of the task but contributes to the whole.”
“经理指派工作的最有效的方法是把负责的工作分成比较简单的组成部分。这样的话，每个工人完成工作的一小部分但对整体都有贡献。”
1， 每个员工都目标明确因此更有效率
2， 缺乏全局观念也可能出现协调上的困难
3， 好的leader好的分配是前提和保证
case by case.
1， 有些庞大的工程big and complex project，需要人们把工作细分，a, 单独的人没有力量完成，会take much more time，团队之间合作更有利于完成整个任务。b, 每个人可以做自己最擅长的工作。each member can choose the part that she or he are good at. 这样就整体上eliminate the total amount of time to complete the whole task.
2， 但很多工作不适合仅仅literally divide拆分。在要求连贯的coherent reasoning. 各个部分之间close related. 所以，第一，需要整个小组的人进行有效的communication，第二，需要对团队整个collective goal的adequate comprehension，第三，保证这两条的必要条件prerequisite to meet the two needs is 团队合理的人数，不能过多，也不能过少。第四，要有一个team leader，负责指挥和协调工作provide effective guide and lead the team to adhere to the collective goal (common purpose).
phrases: fragment work into small units; Distinct divisions of labor; stifle creativity; undermine self-motivation and pride in one’s work; collaboration=cooperation;
Of course, unproductive employees can be replaced. But replacement is costly; and high employee turnover is bad for organizational morale.-----用在对员工缺乏效率时的补充，很有用!!
View1: work division and assignment is an efficient way to get things done. However, merely dividing work among workers can not assure the final accomplishment of the task.
Evidence: fragmenting work into small units leads to employee alienation, Those responsible for only a detailed component of a project can easily lose sight of larger organizational goals and their own importance in achieving them. then become less committed to their work, and less productive. In addition, the lack of overall conception may lead to adjusting difficulties. Moreover, Compartmentalizing tasks can stifle cooperation.
View2: However, team work is not to simply add one component to another, but to organically conform all components together.
The stated opinion is that the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This strategy is probably cost-effective in many situations. However, I think that it works against important organizational values over time.
Distinct divisions of labor are efficient for a number of reasons. First of all, workers with few highly specific skills are usually cheaper to hire than those with broader education and experience. Secondly, it is less expensive to train employees in narrow areas. Finally, strict compartmentalization of tasks makes it easier for managers to control employees, and, therefore, to control and increase productivity. But however profitable this strategy might be in the short run, it can ultimately work against the organization.
To begin with, fragmenting work into small units leads to employee alienation. Those responsible for only a detailed component of a project can easily lose sight of larger organizational goals and their own importance in achieving them. Research indicates that they then become less committed to their work, and less productive. Of course, unproductive employees can be replaced. But replacement is costly; and high employee turnover is bad for organizational morale.
In addition, compartmentalizing tasks can stifle creativity, as well as undermine self-motivation and pride in one’s work. With little collaboration or even communication between discrete work units, larger creative insights are lost. And, cooperative efforts usually foster a series of common purpose and pride in accomplishment.
Of course, diversifying jobs and increasing worker participation in larger projects could lead to lower productivity. But the experience of large manufacturing corporations like General Motors shows just the opposite. When GM facilities implemented these and other strategies to improve work-place quality, they reported that productivity increased.
In conclusion, I believe that organizing work into discrete tasks will compromise important organizational values like creativity, self-motivation, commitment and pride in accomplishment. So, although there are times when small divisions of labor will be necessary, generally work should be diversified, and workers should have greater involvement in projects overall.
110. “All personnel evaluations at a company should be multi-directional — that is, people at every level of the organization should review not only those working ‘under’ them but also those working ‘over’ them.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
“一个公司里所有的个人评价都应该是多方面的，即组织内各个层面的人员不但应该评价他们的下属也应该评价他们的上司。”
1， bureaucratism
2， 过程会耗时和繁杂
3， 设计一种好的高效的评价体系
The speaker asserts that employees at all levels in an organization should review one another, including those working “over” them as well as “under” them. I agree in part. Often companies will conduct two different kinds of periodic review, one to justify decisions regarding promotion and pay, and another to increase overall efficiency by assessing employee performance. Multi-directional evaluation should never be part of the first kind of review; however, it can be valuable in the second kind and, therefore, should be used there.
On the one hand, lower-level employees have too much organizational power if their evaluations are used in decisions about the pay or promotions of their superiors. Employees can intimidate superiors with the threat of bad review. Also employees can use the review process to retaliate against those at higher levels. In either case, the authority of a manager or an executive can be seriously compromised, and productivity is lost in the process.
On the other hand, the most revealing criticisms of a superior’s style often come from those subject to it. In a process of review that isn’t connected to promotion or pay, employees at all levels can be more comfortable and forthright about sharing concerns. In turn, every employee is more likely to get accurate feedback, including constructive criticism, that will help each nurture strengths and improve areas of weakness. In this way (adv. 这样), multi-directional evaluation can greatly enhance organizational efficiency.
Furthermore, multi-directional evaluation in this context helps prevent worker alienation and subsequent lowered productivity. Widening the performance review process will very likely foster a greater sense of personal involvement in one’s work, especially among lower-level employees. Recent studies have shown that people who feel more invested in their jobs tend to work more cooperatively and productively.
In conclusion, there is an important role for multi-directional personnel evaluation in the workplace. While it should be clearly separate from issues of promotion and pay, as part of the performance review process it can encourage better employee relations and higher productivity.