2. 考研
  3. About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We we

About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We we

admin2020-01-09  7
问题     About 20 years ago I was leading a brainstorming session in one of my MBA classes, and it was like wading through oatmeal. We were talking about something that many organizations struggle with; how to build a culture of equality in a male-dominated environment. Though it was an issue the students cared about, they clearly felt uninspired by the ideas they were generating. After a lot of discussion, the energy level in the room was approaching nil. Glancing at the clock, I resolved to at least give us a starting point for the next session.
    "Everyone," I improvised, "let’s forget about finding answers for today and just come up with some new questions we could be asking about this problem. Let’s see how many we can write down in the time we have left. " The students dutifully started to throw out questions, and I scribbled them on a chalkboard, redirecting anybody who started to suggest an answer. To my surprise, the room was quickly energized. At the end of the session, people left talking excitedly about a few of the questions that had emerged—those that challenged basic assumptions we had been making. For instance; Were there grassroots efforts we could support, rather than handing down rules from the top? And; What could we learn from pockets within our own organization that had achieved equality, instead of automatically looking elsewhere for best practices? Suddenly, there was much more to discuss, because we had opened up unexpected pathways to potential solutions.
    Brainstorming for questions, not answers, wasn’t something I’d tried before. It just occurred to me in that moment, probably because I had recently been reading sociologist Parker Palmer’s early work about creative discovery through open, honest inquiry. But this technique worked so well with the students that I began experimenting with it in consulting engagements, and eventually it evolved into a methodology that I continue to refine. By now I’ve used it with hundreds of clients, including global teams at Chanel, Danone, Disney, EY, Fidelity, Genentech, Salesforce, and dozens of other companies; nonprofit organizations; and individual leaders I’ve coached.
    Underlying the approach is a broader recognition that fresh questions often beget novel—even transformative—insights. Consider this example from the field of psychology: Before 1998 virtually all well-trained psychologists focused on attacking the roots of mental disorders and deficits, on the assumption that well-being came down to the absence of those negative conditions. But then Martin Seligman became president of the American Psychological Association, and he reframed things for his colleagues. What if, he asked in a speech at the APA’s annual meeting, well-being is just as driven by the presence of certain positive conditions—keys to flourishing that could be recognized, measured, and cultivated? With that question, the positive psychology movement was born.
Why is the new method effective?
选项 A、Because American Psychological Association approves it.
B、Because it recognizes the transformative insights.
C、Because it is commonly believed that questions will lead to new thoughts.
D、It is not mentioned in the passage.
答案C
解析 推理判断题。答案可以定位到第四段第一句：“在这种具体的方法之下是一种更为广阔的认知：新的问题能够启发新的、甚至是具有变革意义的观点。”[A]“因为得到了美国心理学会的认可”不能作为直接证据；[B]“因为它认为转变性的观点的确存在”属于断章取义，不正确；[D]“文章中没有提到”也不正确，因为在第四段中确实提到了。因此答案为[C]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/SKe4777K
0

考研英语二

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)