"The most effective way for managers to assign works is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts. This way, each worker completes a small portion of the task but contributes to the whole."
It is sometimes difficult to discuss people's views about whether the most effective way for managers to assign work is to divide complex tasks into their simpler component parts, because it is such a multifaceted question. While the first reaction of some people may be to disagree with this statement, I feel it is worthy of deeper consideration. In my opinion, there are three reasons to agree with this statement.
First of all, breaking a complex task down into its parts and assigning each part to a certain worker (or group of workers) takes advantage of the fact that different people have different skills. For instance, the complex task of putting up a high-rise building might require as many as hundred sets of skills, or trades such as electricians, pipe fitters, insulators, and crane operators. One part of the job would call for qualifications in electrical work, still another in crane operating, and so forth.
In addition, by providing a complex task into its component parts, the very job of overseeing this task becomes that much more manageable. For example, in delegating different parts of the job to different groups of works, it becomes that much easier for the supervisor to schedule and monitor the output of each group. If one part of the job is behind schedule, the supervisor will know which group to single out as being responsible for the delay. Beside, of another part is ahead of schedule, then he will know which group to praise. Indeed, in delegating different portion of the job to those in charge of the various trades, the supervisor dose not have to get bogged down with trying to "micro-manage" the details of the task.
Finally, when a task is broken down into its parts and each part is assigned to a certain worker (or group of workers), it is easier to complete the job on time. Consider, again, the construction of a high-rise building, and how long it would take if the electrical work could not begin until the plumbing was completed, and the heating ducts could not be installed until the electrical work was completed. Consider, by contrast, how much faster it would be when the wiring, plumbing, and heating ducts could be installed at more or less the same time by the different trade workers. It is when a complex task is broken down into clearly distinctive parts that it becomes possible to plan for having different trade workers working on different parts of the job at the same time.
In summary, for the reasons and example just cited, I firmly believe that the most effective way to manage a complex task is to divide it into its component parts. The approach makes the most of the fact that different people have different skills. Furthermore, it also makes the task of managing much easier. Finally, this approach to a complex task shortens the time it takes to complete the task.
時間：45分鐘
字數：526
Friday, December 21, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Issue No.121 模擬
"Technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together."
It is always a controversial issue whether technology separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. From my point of view, technology has done more to bring people together than to separate or alienate them. Therefore, I disagree with the statement. Here are some reasons why.
First of all, technology has brought about a revolution in the way we communicate with each other through the use of cellular phones and the Internet. Thanks to these new mediums of communication, people are brought closer together. With access to cellular phones or the Internet, I am now only seconds away from communicating with distant friends. With access to these devices, the geographical distance between acquaintances matters much less than it did in the past. I can still maintain close contact with my family and friends, even if they are on the other side of the world. Evidently, technology makes people become closer than ever.
In addition, technology has given us the means to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time for a relatively cheap price. Imagine having to travel overseas to visit your parents had you all lived a mere hundred year ago. Think of both the time and money such a trip would have cost! Now compare the difficulties of this trip a century ago with the relative ease and comfort of the same trip today. The technical innovations in transportation, as well as in communication, have only served to bring us closer together.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the worn-out idea that technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. To the contrary, technology improves our ability to talk to each other. Also, it improves our ability to travel and see each other. Apparently, technological innovations in both transportation and in communication that were noted in the preceding paragraphs unite people in different locations.
字數:331
時間:31分鐘
It is always a controversial issue whether technology separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. From my point of view, technology has done more to bring people together than to separate or alienate them. Therefore, I disagree with the statement. Here are some reasons why.
First of all, technology has brought about a revolution in the way we communicate with each other through the use of cellular phones and the Internet. Thanks to these new mediums of communication, people are brought closer together. With access to cellular phones or the Internet, I am now only seconds away from communicating with distant friends. With access to these devices, the geographical distance between acquaintances matters much less than it did in the past. I can still maintain close contact with my family and friends, even if they are on the other side of the world. Evidently, technology makes people become closer than ever.
In addition, technology has given us the means to travel great distances in relatively short periods of time for a relatively cheap price. Imagine having to travel overseas to visit your parents had you all lived a mere hundred year ago. Think of both the time and money such a trip would have cost! Now compare the difficulties of this trip a century ago with the relative ease and comfort of the same trip today. The technical innovations in transportation, as well as in communication, have only served to bring us closer together.
In summary, I strongly disagree with the worn-out idea that technology ultimately separates and alienates people more than it serves to bring them together. To the contrary, technology improves our ability to talk to each other. Also, it improves our ability to travel and see each other. Apparently, technological innovations in both transportation and in communication that were noted in the preceding paragraphs unite people in different locations.
字數:331
時間:31分鐘
Monday, December 10, 2007
Issue No.137 模擬
"Instead of relying on the advice of outside experts, organizations should place greater value in the advice that can come only from their own highly experienced employees."
The issue is whether organizations should place greater value on the advice only from their own highly experienced employees rather than on the advice of outside experts. For the following reasons, I strongly disagree with the company they work for.
First of all, although the employees can be just as capable as the outside experts, what they lack is objectivity. Just as an author is not very capable of reviewing his/her own works, he/she needs independent outside editors to review the works impartially. If the situation involved the opinion of inexperienced outside people against the opinion of the employees, of course, the outside opinion should be discounted. However, as experts, they should be just as technically knowledgeable as the employees of the particular organization should. Presumably, the experts have studied the particular industry or organization and are able to comment on facts or figures objectively.
In addition, employees are attached to the company they work for and are less able than experts to view current company prospects effectively. For example, if a company is doing its share as the dominant industry leader, its employees are unwilling to believe the news and/or try to put a good spin on the bad news. Their jobs and livelihood are at stake if the company is losing money; therefore, they cannot see the complete picture as clearly as an outside expert who gives advice based on the facts.
In conclusion, independent experts are more capable of giving more realistic advice, whether good or bad in nature, than employees can, since employees tend to be optimists. Besides, most employees are not very effective in looking at the plain facts and figure; they bring biases and emotions into the picture.
時間:29分鐘
字數:311
The issue is whether organizations should place greater value on the advice only from their own highly experienced employees rather than on the advice of outside experts. For the following reasons, I strongly disagree with the company they work for.
First of all, although the employees can be just as capable as the outside experts, what they lack is objectivity. Just as an author is not very capable of reviewing his/her own works, he/she needs independent outside editors to review the works impartially. If the situation involved the opinion of inexperienced outside people against the opinion of the employees, of course, the outside opinion should be discounted. However, as experts, they should be just as technically knowledgeable as the employees of the particular organization should. Presumably, the experts have studied the particular industry or organization and are able to comment on facts or figures objectively.
In addition, employees are attached to the company they work for and are less able than experts to view current company prospects effectively. For example, if a company is doing its share as the dominant industry leader, its employees are unwilling to believe the news and/or try to put a good spin on the bad news. Their jobs and livelihood are at stake if the company is losing money; therefore, they cannot see the complete picture as clearly as an outside expert who gives advice based on the facts.
In conclusion, independent experts are more capable of giving more realistic advice, whether good or bad in nature, than employees can, since employees tend to be optimists. Besides, most employees are not very effective in looking at the plain facts and figure; they bring biases and emotions into the picture.
時間:29分鐘
字數:311
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Issue No. 142 模擬
"Employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor because they have little basis for judging or understanding their supervisor's performance."
The assertion in question is that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor's performance. I disagree with this assertion for the following three reasons.
First of all, employees are in fact competent to evaluate the performance of their supervisor. It is nonsense to suggest that they have little basis for judging a supervisor's performance. More than anybody else, it is the people working directly "below" the supervisor who are in a position to assess his performance. Obviously, it is they who are most familiar with the work environment overseen by their supervisor. With a first-hand understanding of their jobs, they are perfectly competent to judge him on such relevant matters as team leadership and clarity of communication.
In addition, a formal evaluation of a supervisor reflects how is viewed by his subordinates. These evaluations do more than provide information for his employers: they also provide him with valuable information as well - such as guidance on how he might improve himself as a supervisor. Even those evaluations that he deems mistaken or unfair can prove to be important, if only for the simple reason that they alert him to a misunderstanding between his subordinates and himself that should be cleared up.
Finally, a formal evaluation of a supervisor gets the employees to think about their relation to their supervisor in a fairly intelligent way. With an official way in which to communicate their concerns in writing, they have to articulate them in a constructive way. Moreover, without any official mechanism by which to communicate their grievances, their talk may turn into vicious gossip. Besides, with a means to communicate their concerns at their disposal, they have less reason to whine that "Nobody listen to us."
In summary, I disagree with the assertion that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor. First, the argument is simply false that they have no basis for the supervisor as to how he might improve himself in the job. Finally, with an official mechanism of communicating in place, the employees are encouraged to criticize in a constructive way.
字數:377
時間:35分鐘
The assertion in question is that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor's performance. I disagree with this assertion for the following three reasons.
First of all, employees are in fact competent to evaluate the performance of their supervisor. It is nonsense to suggest that they have little basis for judging a supervisor's performance. More than anybody else, it is the people working directly "below" the supervisor who are in a position to assess his performance. Obviously, it is they who are most familiar with the work environment overseen by their supervisor. With a first-hand understanding of their jobs, they are perfectly competent to judge him on such relevant matters as team leadership and clarity of communication.
In addition, a formal evaluation of a supervisor reflects how is viewed by his subordinates. These evaluations do more than provide information for his employers: they also provide him with valuable information as well - such as guidance on how he might improve himself as a supervisor. Even those evaluations that he deems mistaken or unfair can prove to be important, if only for the simple reason that they alert him to a misunderstanding between his subordinates and himself that should be cleared up.
Finally, a formal evaluation of a supervisor gets the employees to think about their relation to their supervisor in a fairly intelligent way. With an official way in which to communicate their concerns in writing, they have to articulate them in a constructive way. Moreover, without any official mechanism by which to communicate their grievances, their talk may turn into vicious gossip. Besides, with a means to communicate their concerns at their disposal, they have less reason to whine that "Nobody listen to us."
In summary, I disagree with the assertion that employees should not be asked to provide formal evaluations of their supervisor. First, the argument is simply false that they have no basis for the supervisor as to how he might improve himself in the job. Finally, with an official mechanism of communicating in place, the employees are encouraged to criticize in a constructive way.
字數:377
時間:35分鐘
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)