剑14Test2雅思阅读Passage3原文翻译-公司为何应接受无组织性

2019-09-05 11:48

雅思备考资料免费领取

免费领取
摘要: 摘要:100留学雅思小编给考生们带来了剑14Test2雅思阅读Passage3原文翻译:公司为何应接受无组织性。希望帮助考生对照文本更好的研究真题,充分备考,争取好成绩,实现出国留学梦。

  摘要:100留学雅思小编给考生们带来了剑14Test2雅思阅读Passage3原文翻译:公司为何应接受无组织性。希望帮助考生对照文本更好的研究真题,充分备考,争取好成绩,实现出国留学梦。



14Test2雅思阅读Passage3原文


AOrganisation is big business. Whether it is of our lives - all those

inboxes and calendars -or how companies are structured, a multi-billion dollar

industry helps to meet this need.


We have more strategies for time management, project management and

self-organisation than at any other time in human history. We are told that we

ought to


organise our company, our home life, our week, our day and even our sleep,

all as a means to becoming more productive. Every week, countless seminars and

workshops take place around the world to tell a paying public that they ought to

structure their lives in order to achieve this.


This rhetoric has also crept into the thinking of business leaders and

entrepreneurs, much to the delight of self-proclaimed perfectionists with the

need to get everything right. The number of business schools and graduates has

massively increased over the past 50 years, essentially teaching people how to

organise well.


BIronically, however, the number of businesses that fail has also steadily

increased. Work-related stress has increased. A large proportion of workers from

all demographics claim to be dissatisfied with the way their work is structured

and the way they are managed.


This begs the question: what has gone wrong? Why is it that on paper the

drive for organisation seems a sure shot for increasing productivity, but in

reality falls well short of what is expected?


CThis has been a problem for a while now. Frederick Taylor was one of the

forefathers of scientific management. Writing in the first half of the 20th

century, he designed a number of principles to improve the efficiency of the

work process, which have since become widespread in modern companies. So the

approach has been around for a while.


DNew research suggests that this obsession with efficiency is misguided.

The problem is not necessarily the management theories or strategies we use to

organise our work; it's the basic assumptions we hold in approaching how we

work. Here it's the assumption that order is a necessary condition for

productivity. This assumption has also fostered the idea that disorder must be

detrimental to organisational productivity. The result is that businesses and

people spend time and money organising themselves for the sake of organising,

rather than actually looking at the end goal and usefulness of such an

effort.


EWhat's more, recent studies show that order actually has diminishing

returns. Order does increase productivity to a certain extent, but eventually

the usefulness of the process of organisation, and the benefit it yields, reduce

until the point where any further increase in order reduces productivity. Some

argue that in a business, if the cost of formally structuring something

outweighs the benefit of doing it, then that thing ought not to be formally

structured. Instead, the resources involved can be better used elsewhere.


FIn fact, research shows that, when innovating, the best approach is to

create an environment devoid of structure and hierarchy and enable everyone

involved to engage as one organic group. These environments can lead to new

solutions that, under conventionally structured environments (filled with

bottlenecks in terms of information flow, power structures, rules, and routines)

would never be reached.


GIn recent times companies have slowly started to embrace this

disorganisation. Many of them embrace it in terms of perception ( embracing the

idea of disorder, as opposed to fearing it) and in terms of process (putting

mechanisms in place to reduce structure).


For example, Oticon, a large Danish manufacturer of hearing aids, used what

it called a 'spaghetti' structure in order to reduce the organisation's rigid

hierarchies. This involved scrapping formal job titles and giving staff huge

amounts of ownership over their own time and projects. This approach proved to

be highly successful initially, with clear improvements in worker productivity

in all facets of the business.


In similar fashion, the former chairman of General Electric embraced

disorganisation, putting forward the idea of the 'boundary less' organisation.

Again, it involves breaking down the barriers between different parts of a

company and encouraging virtual collaboration and flexible working. Google and a

number of other tech companies have embraced (at least in part) these kinds of

flexible structures, facilitated by technology and strong company values which

glue people together.


HA word of warning to others thinking of jumping on this bandwagon: the

evidence so far suggests disorder, much like order, also seems to have

diminishing utility, and can also have detrimental effects on performance if

overused. Like order, disorder should be embraced only so far as it is useful.

But we should not fear it - nor venerate one over the other.This research also

shows that we should continually question whether or not our existing

assumptions work.





14Test2雅思阅读Passage3翻译


A保持织性是笔大生意。无论是保持生活有条理—一整理所有收件箱和日程表—一还是保持公司结构的组织性,都需要一笔很大的开支。


现在、我们拥有有史以来最多的时间管理、项目管理和自我管理的策略。我们被告知应该组织好自己的公司、家庭生活,组织好每一周、每一天,甚至还要组织好睡眠学只有这样才能变得更高效。每周都有无数个研讨会和讲习班在世界各地展开,告诉付费参加的公众要安排好自己的生活,以取得成效。


令那些自称完美主义者、力求做妤每件事的人高兴的是,这些说辞也传到了商业领袖中和企业家的耳朵里。在过去的50年间,商学院及共毕业生的数量大幅增长,而从本质上来说,它们主要教人们如何高效地组织安排。




B然而,讽刺的是,破产企业的数量也在稳步增长。工作压力越来越大。在各类人群中有很大一部分员工声称不满工作的组织方式和人员管理方式。


这就引发了问题:哪里出错了?为什么从理论上看组织性肯定可以提高生产效率,但实际上却与预期相差甚远?




C这个问题已经出现一段时间了。 Frederick

Taylor是提出科学管理的先驱之一。20世纪上丰叶,他制定了一些可以提高工作效率的行为准则,从那时起,这些准则便在现代公司中广泛使用。因此,这种(科学管理)方法已经存在一段时间了。




D新的研究表明,痴迷于高效会适得其反。问题不一定在于我们用来组织工作的管理理论或策略;而在于我们对如何处理工作问题时所持的基本设想。我们的设想是:有组织性是提高生产效率的必要条件。这一假设又衍生出一种观念,即无組织性一定不科于提高组织机构的生产效率。结果就是,企业和个人都耗费了时间和金钱为了管理而管理,而不是切实关注这一努力的最终目标及其是否有用。




E此外,最近的研究表明,有组织性带来的回报实际上是递减的。它在一定程度上确实可以提高生产效率,但组织过程的有效性及共产生的效益最终都会减少,直到最后,组织性与生产效率背道而驰。有人说,在一家企业里,如果按照一定形式组织某件事的成本高于这么做所带来的好处,那么这件事就不应该这么组织。相反,其中所用的资源可以另作它用。




F实际上,研究表明,在进行创新时,最好的方法是创造一个没有结构和等级之分的环境,让毎个人都能参与其中,形成一个有机的群体。这样的环境可以带来解决问题的新方法,而在有传统结构的环境中(在信息交流、权力结构、规章条例、例行程序上充满了障碍),是永远达不成的。




G最近,有些公司已经慢慢开始接受无组织性。其中很多公司不仅从认知上接受了官(接受无组织性这个概念,而不是害怕它,还将其应用到实际流程中(制定一些机制来减少结构)


例如,丹麦的大型助听器制造商奥迪康使用其所谓的“意大利面条式”结构来减少死板的企业等级制度。其中包括取消形式化的职称,并给予员工更多掌控自己时间和项目的权利。事实证明,这种方法起初取得了很大成功,公司各部门员工的生产效率都有明显提高。


同样,通用电气公司的前任董事长也接受了无组织性,提出了“无边界组织”这一概念。它也包括打破公司不同部门之间的障碍,鼓励虛拟协作和弹性工作。谷歌以及一些其他科技公司也已经(至少部分地)接受了这些弹性的企业结构,再辅以科技和强大的公司价值观将员工凝聚在一起。




H给想要跟随这种潮流的人们一条警告:目前的证据表明,和有组织性一样,无组织性的实用性也是递减的,而且如果使用过度,也会产生不利影响。同样和有组织性一样我们应该以有用性为标准去接受无组织性。但我们不应该畏惧它—一也不应该厚此遵彼。研究还表明,我们应该不断质疑现有的设想是否正确。



以上就是剑14雅思阅读原文及译文,更多雅思资料,请点击:雅思阅读频道


更多雅思备考内容,请继续关注100留学教育,专注学生雅思备考。


扫二维码,添加100留学助教老师sugar,备注“官网”

免费领取雅思备考计划、30G雅思精选资料,最新口语新题考点资料

100留学移动课堂出国留学语言培训专家
立即下载
移动课堂是100留学最新推出的“贴身学习伴侣”, 其中拥有名师直播、录播课程和名师答疑等多项服务。课堂可以为大家提供新的移动学习平台,让大家学习更方便,想学就学!
关注更多校区资讯,考试动态,满满的干货喂饱你!
2019雅思IELTS真题解析汇总

你可能需要的资料

2019雅思考试机经预测

热门文章

编辑推荐