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

　　核心詞匯：

　　appealing adj.吸引人的;parkle v.(使)閃耀;reassure vt.使恢復信心;stale adj.陳腐的;implicit adj.暗示的。盲從的;inspiring adj.鼓舞的;divert v.轉移;profitable adj.有利可圖的。

　　文章翻譯：

　　這些商業學校的想法非常具有吸引力。在這里所有公司都必須適應新技術與競爭環境，為優秀雇員提供工作保障以及晉升的機會比以前更困難了。然而，對于雇員來講，擁有更好的技能以及充滿睿智的思想火花也比以前更有必要了。如果公司不再能夠為雇員提供保障和晉升，他們如何使雇員充分發揮才能呢?

　　很多老板都希望有自己的答案。倫敦商學院的蘇曼特拉。戈沙爾和哈佛商學院的克里斯托弗。巴特利特認為他們自己的答案是“可雇傭性”。如果經理提供正確的培訓及指導，并且改變他們對下屬的態度，他們將能使自己的雇員充滿信心并且認為自己總是有技能、有經驗、可以找到一份好工作——即使是在不同的公司。

　　令人遺憾的是，這些老板所做的承諾遠遠超出他們實際所能做到的。在有關一個完美的組織所能獲得的成就上，如鼓勵人們具有創造性、與公司同甘共苦、避免公司疲塌并向前發展等方面，他們無可非議。但他們在展示公司是如何創造出這樣一種環境之時卻令人非常失望。問題的中心在于這樣一種觀念：即他們認為改變與工人的合同并將其看作價值的源泉而非機器中的齒輪，來達到公司的目的。

　　作者提供了一些鼓舞人心的公司案例(包括摩托羅拉、3M和ABB)，這些公司都成功地創造出了這樣的組織機構。但是他們很少提供有關如何運作組織的有益指導，這個最復雜的問題一直沒人來回答。如何在不分散雇員對工作注意力的情況下不斷地對他們加以培訓，以使公司所獲利潤更大?如何將雇員培訓為一個在任何地方都是優秀的人而又激勵他們為你的公司效力?如何使思想解放的雇員將他們的時間花費在能夠創造價值的想法上而不是他們所喜愛的一些念頭上?這些問題的大多數答案都是老生常談，不是老生常談的也不具有說服力。

　　答案辨析：

　　1.A推斷題。由題干關鍵詞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，過去一名優秀的職員很容易獲得工作保障和晉升機會，結合選項可知，A正確。且由該句話可知在過去工作上的競爭并不算殘酷，因此排除B(必須和別人競爭);文中并未談到過去有什么培訓，故排除C(必須總是接受培訓);D(在公司獲得晉升毫無不費力)過于絕對。

　　2.C細節題。由題干關鍵詞Christopher Bartlett和employability定位文章第二段。該段中employability后的內容即是對此詞的解釋：經理們提供正確的培訓及指導，并且能夠改變對下屬的態度，就能使雇員總是有技能、有經驗，從而可以找到一份好工作。結合選項可知，C正確。

　　3.C態度題。題干問作者對Ghoshal and Bartlett的觀點有何看法。從第三段的Unfortunately，they promise more than they deliver…(令人遺憾的是，他們所做的承諾遠遠超出他們實際所能做到的)以及下文提到的The real disappointment comes…可以看出，作者對Ghoshal和Bartlett的觀點不以為然，認為這兩個人許諾的比實際提供的要多，可見作者認為他們的觀點不切實際，故選C.

　　4.D推斷題。文中提到，Ghoshal和Bartlett不僅討論了企業的組織形式，還討論了企業應該提供給員工一個創新的環境，以及對企業員工進行培訓和管理，最后達到企業發展的目的。因此用“企業管理”來概括他們的觀念最為合適，選項中A過于片面，B只是簡單提到，C過于寬泛，只有D最符合題意。

　　5.A推斷題。判斷此題的關鍵在最后一段，由該段首句The author offers a few example of companies…but they offer little useful guidance…中的關鍵詞the author可推知，本文屬于書評，故應選A.

　　如果大家想要了解更多有關在職研究生專業信息，可以查看在職研究生招生簡章，或是通過關注中國在職研究生網微信“eduego_zzyjs”了解詳情。