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(fù)信心;stale adj.陳腐的;implicit adj.暗示的。盲從的;inspiring adj.鼓舞的;divert v.轉(zhuǎn)移;profitable adj.有利可圖的。

　　文章翻譯：

　　這些商業(yè)學(xué)校的想法非常具有吸引力。在這里所有公司都必須適應(yīng)新技術(shù)與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)環(huán)境，為優(yōu)秀雇員提供工作保障以及晉升的機(jī)會(huì)比以前更困難了。然而，對(duì)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?yàn)楣蛦T提供保障和晉升，他們?nèi)绾问构蛦T充分發(fā)揮才能呢?

　　很多老板都希望有自己的答案。倫敦商學(xué)院的蘇曼特拉。戈沙爾和哈佛商學(xué)院的克里斯托弗。巴特利特認(rèn)為他們自己的答案是“可雇傭性”。如果經(jīng)理提供正確的培訓(xùn)及指導(dǎo)，并且改變他們對(duì)下屬的態(tài)度，他們將能使自己的雇員充滿信心并且認(rèn)為自己總是有技能、有經(jīng)驗(yàn)、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(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出他們實(shí)際所能做到的。在有關(guān)一個(gè)完美的組織所能獲得的成就上，如鼓勵(lì)人們具有創(chuàng)造性、與公司同甘共苦、避免公司疲塌并向前發(fā)展等方面，他們無可非議。但他們?cè)谡故竟臼侨绾蝿?chuàng)造出這樣一種環(huán)境之時(shí)卻令人非常失望。問題的中心在于這樣一種觀念：即他們認(rèn)為改變與工人的合同并將其看作價(jià)值的源泉而非機(jī)器中的齒輪，來達(dá)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(chuàng)造出了這樣的組織機(jī)構(gòu)。但是他們很少提供有關(guān)如何運(yùn)作組織的有益指導(dǎo)，這個(gè)最復(fù)雜的問題一直沒人來回答。如何在不分散雇員對(duì)工作注意力的情況下不斷地對(duì)他們加以培訓(xùn)，以使公司所獲利潤(rùn)更大?如何將雇員培訓(xùn)為一個(gè)在任何地方都是優(yōu)秀的人而又激勵(lì)他們?yōu)槟愕墓拘Я?如何使思想解放的雇員將他們的時(shí)間花費(fèi)在能夠創(chuàng)造價(jià)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(shù)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(guān)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(yōu)秀的職員很容易獲得工作保障和晉升機(jī)會(huì)，結(jié)合選項(xiàng)可知，A正確。且由該句話可知在過去工作上的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)并不算殘酷，因此排除B(必須和別人競(jìng)爭(zhēng));文中并未談到過去有什么培訓(xùn)，故排除C(必須總是接受培訓(xùn));D(在公司獲得晉升毫無不費(fèi)力)過于絕對(duì)。

　　2.C細(xì)節(jié)題。由題干關(guān)鍵詞Christopher Bartlett和employability定位文章第二段。該段中employability后的內(nèi)容即是對(duì)此詞的解釋：經(jīng)理們提供正確的培訓(xùn)及指導(dǎo)，并且能夠改變對(duì)下屬的態(tài)度，就能使雇員總是有技能、有經(jīng)驗(yàn)，從而可以找到一份好工作。結(jié)合選項(xiàng)可知，C正確。

　　3.C態(tài)度題。題干問作者對(duì)Ghoshal and Bartlett的觀點(diǎn)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(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出他們實(shí)際所能做到的)以及下文提到的The real disappointment comes…可以看出，作者對(duì)Ghoshal和Bartlett的觀點(diǎn)不以為然，認(rèn)為這兩個(gè)人許諾的比實(shí)際提供的要多，可見作者認(rèn)為他們的觀點(diǎn)不切實(shí)際，故選C.

　　4.D推斷題。文中提到，Ghoshal和Bartlett不僅討論了企業(yè)的組織形式，還討論了企業(yè)應(yīng)該提供給員工一個(gè)創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境，以及對(duì)企業(yè)員工進(jìn)行培訓(xùn)和管理，最后達(dá)到企業(yè)發(fā)展的目的。因此用“企業(yè)管理”來概括他們的觀念最為合適，選項(xiàng)中A過于片面，B只是簡(jiǎn)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(guān)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(guān)鍵詞the author可推知，本文屬于書評(píng)，故應(yīng)選A.

　　如果大家想要了解更多有關(guān)在職研究生專業(yè)信息，可以查看在職研究生招生簡(jiǎn)章，或是通過關(guān)注中國(guó)在職研究生網(wǎng)微信“eduego_zzyjs”了解詳情。