这篇文章的内容有点奇怪。
In an attempt to improve the overall performance of clerical workers, many companies have introduced computerized performance monitoring and control systems (CPMCS) that record and report a worker's computer-driven activities. （为了提升员工的成绩，公司引进CPMCS。) However, at least one study has shown that such monitoring may not be having the desired effect.（然而至少一项研究表明这样的监控不一定带来预期的结果。） In the study, researchers asked monitored clerical workers and their supervisors how assessments of productivity affected supervisors' ratings of workers' performance.（研究人员问被监控的员工和他们的上司，关于生产力的评定方法是如何影响上司对员工成绩的 ratings 的。） In contrast to unmonitored workers doing the same work, who without exception identified the most important element in their jobs as customer service, the monitored workers and their supervisors all responded that productivity was the critical factor in assigning ratings.（不同的是，做相同工作的未被监控的员工无一例外地认为他们的工作中最重要的因素是客户服务；而被监控的员工和他们的上司都认为在评估的各项指标中生产力最重要。） This finding suggested that there should have been a strong correlation between a monitored worker's productivity and the overall rating the worker received.（这个发现暗示在被监控员工的生产力和他们收到的评估之间一定有一种很强的关联关系。） However, measures of the relationship between overall rating and individual elements of performance clearly supported the conclusion that supervisors gave considerable weight to criteria such as attendance.accuracy, and indications of customer satisfaction.（然而，关于总体评估和业绩的单个元素之间的关系的 measures 清楚地支持这个结论：上司在评价工人时非常重视其它的一些因素，如出勤率，准确率和顾客的满意程度等。）
这篇文章的 Main Idea 应该是粉色字体的部分： such monitoring may not be having the desired effect. 研究人员的问卷得到的信息是：上司们和员工一样，认为生产力很重要，然而文章的最后有说，其实上司们重视的是其它的一些因素。
疑问一：怎么 supervisors 的态度如此含糊不清啊？！
疑问二：这篇文章到底想要说明了一个什么问题？项目中的 the desired effect 到底是什么？公司是为了提升员工的 performance 才引进的 CPMCS，那么这个目的实现了吗？文章里并没提到。只是说由于引进了 CPMCS，被监控员工的 perceptions 得以改变（与其他员工不一样了）；以及 supervisors 在各项 elements 里，口头上说的最重要的和实际上认为的因素的不一致。
所以我认为这实在是一篇让人迷惑不解的文章。 | 
