Many managers are influenced by
dangerous myths about pay that lead
to counterproductive decisions about
Linehow their companies compensate
(5)employees.One such myth is that
labor rates, the rate per hour paid to
workers, are identical with labor costs,
the money spent on labor in relation to
the productivity of the labor force.
(10)This myth leads to the assumption that
a company can simply lower its labor
costs by cutting wages.But labor
costs and labor rates are not in fact
the samene company could pay
(15)its workers considerably more than
another and yet have lower labor
costs if that company’s productivity
were higher due to the talent of its
workforce, the efficiency of its work
(20)processes, or other factors.The
confusion of costs with rates per-
sists partly because labor rates are
a convenient target for managers who
want to make an impact on their com-
(25)pany’s budgets.Because labor rates
are highly visible, managers can easily
compare their company’s rates with
those of competitors.Furthermore,
labor rates often appear to be a
(30)company’s most malleable financial
variable:cutting wages appears an
easier way to control costs than such
options as reconfiguring work pro-
cesses or altering product design.
(35)The myth that labor rates and labor
costs are equivalent is supported by
business journalists, who frequently
confound the two.For example, prom-
inent business journals often remark on
(40)the “high” cost of German labor, citing
as evidence the average amount paid
to German workers.The myth is also
perpetuated by the compensation-
consulting industry, which has its own
(45)incentives to keep such myths alive.
First, although some of these con-
sulting firms have recently broadened
their practices beyond the area of
compensation, their mainstay con-
(50)tinues to be advising companies on
changing their compensation prac-
tices.Suggesting that a company’s
performance can be improved in
some other way than by altering its
(55)pay system may be empirically cor-
rect but contrary to the consultants’
interests.Furthermore, changes
to the compensation system may
appear to be simpler to implement
(60)than changes to other aspects of an
organization, so managers are more
likely to find such advice from con-
sultants palatable.Finally, to the
extant that changes in compensation
(65)create new problems, the consultants
will continue to have work solving the
problems that result from their advice.
Q22:
The author of the passage suggests which of the following about the advice that the consulting firms discussed in the passage customarily give to companies attempting to control costs?
A.It often fails to bring about the intended changes in companies’ compensation systems.
B.It has highly influenced views that predominate in prominent business journals.
C.It tends to result in decreased labor rates but increased labor costs.
D.It leads to changes in companies’ compensation practices that are less visible than changes to work processes would be.
E.It might be different if the consulting firms were less narrowly specialized.
Answer:
我觉得选择E，答案说选A，但文章里明明白白说了，咨询公司就是提倡改compensation systems，因为这个比其他的提义更好改。而且因为经理觉得好改，所以也觉得这样的提议很和他们的味口，都在说能bring about the intended changes ，而E，文章里说咨询公司只跟工资叫劲，因为这个容易改。所以如果他们不这么narrowly specialized,那其他的提议可能实施起来比工资这项难吧。作者: sunny9653 时间: 2010-8-13 06:34
A. 工资体系改革总是失败，符合第三条，新的问题，新的失败，新的工作，咨询师才有活路啊！
B. 这个貌似和咨询公司无关
C. 具体的改革措施没被提及
D. 改进工资体系比改进工作流程更不可见效，这和第一二点矛盾，因为咨询公司对其他的改革不感兴趣，而且说了改革工资很受客户认可，因为能被看见
E. 第一条提到了broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, 但是完全推不出如果narrow以后会不一样。所以E是在一厢情愿的取非猜测而已。作者: zongzeng90 时间: 2010-8-13 21:20
E. 第一条提到了broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, 但是完全推不出如果narrow以后会不一样。所以E是在一厢情愿的取非猜测而已，为什么完全推不出来如果不narrow呢？narrow的时候好实行，那不narrow不就难实行了？
还有A,intended changes我的理解是咨询公司想改compensation system,然后改完了会出现新的问题，而不是说改的不成功，是又出现了新的问题导致还要再改。。。作者: sunny9653 时间: 2010-8-14 08:17
我的理解是第一二三点都是在narrow的状态下啊，都只说改compensation system对吧，只关注了这一点，然后经理们也觉得好搞，咨询公司也好搞啊。
First, although some of these consulting firms have recently broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, 虽然近期有些公司已经把咨询意见扩大到CS（compensation system）上面their mainstay continues书to be advising companies on changing their compensation practices.但还是以见意改CS为主，为什么呢，下面是原因：Suggesting that a company’s performance can be improved in some other way than by altering its (55)pay system may be empirically correct 对除CS其他方面提出改革意见可能实际上是正确的，but contrary to the consultants’interests.但是不合咨询公司的味口Furthermore, changes to the compensation system may appear to be simpler to implement (60)than changes to other aspects of an organization, （就在这了）CS的改革好实行，so managers are more likely to find such advice from consultants palatable.所以经理们也觉得合他们的味口Finally, to the extant that changes in compensation(65)create new problems, the consultants will continue to have work solving the problems that result from their advice. 同时因为改革CS会带来新的问题，所以咨询公司会一直有活干。（我的理解是，改革CS会不停地出来新的问题，所以一直有活干，这里能看出来咨询公司的CS改革意见没有达到intended 目的吗？可能达到了这次改革的目的但是改完后又出现新的问题，也说得通吧？
但是这样结合三点来看，CS就是容易执行啊。所以就是narrow的时候好执行啊。题干问得也是推理。
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
ne company could pay