2. 外语
  3. As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partially becau

As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partially becau

admin2017-03-06  146
问题     As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partially because it appears people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and exert more effort, to achieve those goals.
    What’s far less understood by scientists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting.
    Newspapers relay daily accounts of goal-setting prevalent in industries and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street , yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-trumpeted practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis , and unethical(不道德的) behavior in general.
    "Goals are widely used and promoted as having really beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to exert more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in unethical behaviors," says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at Penn’s Wharton School.
    "It turns out there’s no economic benefit to just having a goal—you just get a psychological benefit" Schweitzer says. "But in many cases, goals have economic rewards that make them more powerful."
    A prime example Schweitzer and his colleagues cite is the 2004 collapse of energy-trading giant Enron, where managers used financial incentives to motivate salesmen to meet specific revenue goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is the actual trades were not profitable.
    Other studies have shown that saddling employees with unrealistic goals can compel them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case in the early 1990s when Sears imposed a sales quota on its auto repair staff. It prompted employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.
    Schweitzer concedes his research runs counter to a very large body of literature that commends the many benefits of goal-setting. Advocates of the practice have taken issue with his team’s use of such evidence as news accounts to support his conclusion that goal-setting is widely over-prescribed.
    In a rebuttal (反驳) paper, Dr. Edwin Locke writes:" Goal-setting is not going away. Organizations cannot thrive without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can thrive without goals to provide a sense of purpose. "
    But Schweitzer contends the "mounting causal evidence" linking goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help spotlight issues that merit caution and further investigation. "Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects," he says.
    "Goal-setting does help coordinate and motivate people. My idea would be to combine that with careful oversight, a strong organizational culture, and make sure the goals that you use are going to be constructive and not significantly harm the organization," Schweitzer says.
What is Schweitzer’s contention against Edwin Locke?
选项 A、The link between goal-setting and harmful behavior deserves further study.
B、Goal-setting has become too deep-rooted in corporate culture.
C、The positive effects of goal-setting outweigh its negative effects.
D、Studying goal-setting can throw more light on successful business practices.
答案A
解析 根据题干中的 Edwin Locke 将本题定位到第九、十段。第九段提出了 Edwin Locke 的观点，他认为目标设定不会消失。第十段以but 开头，表明 Schweitzer 持有不同的观点，因此这里应当是本题答案出现的地方，即目标设定与有害行为之间的关联证据需要做进一步的研究。因此选项A是正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/TUU7777K
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)