摘要：100留學(xué)雅思小編給考生們帶來了劍14Test2雅思閱讀Passage3原文翻譯：公司為何應(yīng)接受無組織性。希望幫助考生對照文本更好的研究真題，充分備考，爭取好成績，實(shí)現(xiàn)出國留學(xué)夢。

劍14Test2雅思閱讀Passage3原文

AOrganisation is big business. Whether it is of our lives - all those

inboxes and calendars -or how companies are structured, a multi-billion dollar

industry helps to meet this need.

We have more strategies for time management, project management and

self-organisation than at any other time in human history. We are told that we

ought to

organise our company, our home life, our week, our day and even our sleep,

all as a means to becoming more productive. Every week, countless seminars and

workshops take place around the world to tell a paying public that they ought to

structure their lives in order to achieve this.

This rhetoric has also crept into the thinking of business leaders and

entrepreneurs, much to the delight of self-proclaimed perfectionists with the

need to get everything right. The number of business schools and graduates has

massively increased over the past 50 years, essentially teaching people how to

organise well.

BIronically, however, the number of businesses that fail has also steadily

increased. Work-related stress has increased. A large proportion of workers from

all demographics claim to be dissatisfied with the way their work is structured

and the way they are managed.

This begs the question: what has gone wrong? Why is it that on paper the

drive for organisation seems a sure shot for increasing productivity, but in

reality falls well short of what is expected?

CThis has been a problem for a while now. Frederick Taylor was one of the

forefathers of scientific management. Writing in the first half of the 20th

century, he designed a number of principles to improve the efficiency of the

work process, which have since become widespread in modern companies. So the

approach has been around for a while.

DNew research suggests that this obsession with efficiency is misguided.

The problem is not necessarily the management theories or strategies we use to

organise our work; it's the basic assumptions we hold in approaching how we

work. Here it's the assumption that order is a necessary condition for

productivity. This assumption has also fostered the idea that disorder must be

detrimental to organisational productivity. The result is that businesses and

people spend time and money organising themselves for the sake of organising,

rather than actually looking at the end goal and usefulness of such an

effort.

EWhat's more, recent studies show that order actually has diminishing

returns. Order does increase productivity to a certain extent, but eventually

the usefulness of the process of organisation, and the benefit it yields, reduce

until the point where any further increase in order reduces productivity. Some

argue that in a business, if the cost of formally structuring something

outweighs the benefit of doing it, then that thing ought not to be formally

structured. Instead, the resources involved can be better used elsewhere.

FIn fact, research shows that, when innovating, the best approach is to

create an environment devoid of structure and hierarchy and enable everyone

involved to engage as one organic group. These environments can lead to new

solutions that, under conventionally structured environments (filled with

bottlenecks in terms of information flow, power structures, rules, and routines)

would never be reached.

GIn recent times companies have slowly started to embrace this

disorganisation. Many of them embrace it in terms of perception ( embracing the

idea of disorder, as opposed to fearing it) and in terms of process (putting

mechanisms in place to reduce structure).

For example, Oticon, a large Danish manufacturer of hearing aids, used what

it called a 'spaghetti' structure in order to reduce the organisation's rigid

hierarchies. This involved scrapping formal job titles and giving staff huge

amounts of ownership over their own time and projects. This approach proved to

be highly successful initially, with clear improvements in worker productivity

in all facets of the business.

In similar fashion, the former chairman of General Electric embraced

disorganisation, putting forward the idea of the 'boundary less' organisation.

Again, it involves breaking down the barriers between different parts of a

company and encouraging virtual collaboration and flexible working. Google and a

number of other tech companies have embraced (at least in part) these kinds of

flexible structures, facilitated by technology and strong company values which

glue people together.

HA word of warning to others thinking of jumping on this bandwagon: the

evidence so far suggests disorder, much like order, also seems to have

diminishing utility, and can also have detrimental effects on performance if

overused. Like order, disorder should be embraced only so far as it is useful.

But we should not fear it - nor venerate one over the other.This research also

shows that we should continually question whether or not our existing

assumptions work.

劍14Test2雅思閱讀Passage3翻譯

A保持織性是筆大生意。無論是保持生活有條理—一整理所有收件箱和日程表—一還是保持公司結(jié)構(gòu)的組織性,都需要一筆很大的開支。

現(xiàn)在、我們擁有有史以來最多的時間管理、項目管理和自我管理的策略。我們被告知應(yīng)該組織好自己的公司、家庭生活,組織好每一周、每一天,甚至還要組織好睡眠學(xué)只有這樣才能變得更高效。每周都有無數(shù)個研討會和講習(xí)班在世界各地展開,告訴付費(fèi)參加的公眾要安排好自己的生活,以取得成效。

令那些自稱完美主義者、力求做妤每件事的人高興的是,這些說辭也傳到了商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖中和企業(yè)家的耳朵里。在過去的50年間,商學(xué)院及共畢業(yè)生的數(shù)量大幅增長,而從本質(zhì)上來說,它們主要教人們?nèi)绾胃咝У亟M織安排。

B然而,諷刺的是,破產(chǎn)企業(yè)的數(shù)量也在穩(wěn)步增長。工作壓力越來越大。在各類人群中有很大一部分員工聲稱不滿工作的組織方式和人員管理方式。

這就引發(fā)了問題:哪里出錯了?為什么從理論上看組織性肯定可以提高生產(chǎn)效率,但實(shí)際上卻與預(yù)期相差甚遠(yuǎn)?

C這個問題已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)一段時間了。 Frederick

Taylor是提出科學(xué)管理的先驅(qū)之一。20世紀(jì)上豐葉,他制定了一些可以提高工作效率的行為準(zhǔn)則,從那時起,這些準(zhǔn)則便在現(xiàn)代公司中廣泛使用。因此,這種(科學(xué)管理)方法已經(jīng)存在一段時間了。

D新的研究表明,癡迷于高效會適得其反。問題不一定在于我們用來組織工作的管理理論或策略;而在于我們對如何處理工作問題時所持的基本設(shè)想。我們的設(shè)想是:有組織性是提高生產(chǎn)效率的必要條件。這一假設(shè)又衍生出一種觀念,即無組織性一定不科于提高組織機(jī)構(gòu)的生產(chǎn)效率。結(jié)果就是,企業(yè)和個人都耗費(fèi)了時間和金錢為了管理而管理,而不是切實(shí)關(guān)注這一努力的最終目標(biāo)及其是否有用。

E此外,最近的研究表明,有組織性帶來的回報實(shí)際上是遞減的。它在一定程度上確實(shí)可以提高生產(chǎn)效率,但組織過程的有效性及共產(chǎn)生的效益最終都會減少,直到最后,組織性與生產(chǎn)效率背道而馳。有人說,在一家企業(yè)里,如果按照一定形式組織某件事的成本高于這么做所帶來的好處,那么這件事就不應(yīng)該這么組織。相反,其中所用的資源可以另作它用。

F實(shí)際上,研究表明,在進(jìn)行創(chuàng)新時,最好的方法是創(chuàng)造一個沒有結(jié)構(gòu)和等級之分的環(huán)境,讓毎個人都能參與其中,形成一個有機(jī)的群體。這樣的環(huán)境可以帶來解決問題的新方法,而在有傳統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)的環(huán)境中(在信息交流、權(quán)力結(jié)構(gòu)、規(guī)章條例、例行程序上充滿了障礙),是永遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不成的。

G最近,有些公司已經(jīng)慢慢開始接受無組織性。其中很多公司不僅從認(rèn)知上接受了官(接受無組織性這個概念,而不是害怕它,還將其應(yīng)用到實(shí)際流程中(制定一些機(jī)制來減少結(jié)構(gòu))。

例如,丹麥的大型助聽器制造商奧迪康使用其所謂的“意大利面條式”結(jié)構(gòu)來減少死板的企業(yè)等級制度。其中包括取消形式化的職稱,并給予員工更多掌控自己時間和項目的權(quán)利。事實(shí)證明,這種方法起初取得了很大成功,公司各部門員工的生產(chǎn)效率都有明顯提高。

同樣,通用電氣公司的前任董事長也接受了無組織性,提出了“無邊界組織”這一概念。它也包括打破公司不同部門之間的障礙,鼓勵虛擬協(xié)作和彈性工作。谷歌以及一些其他科技公司也已經(jīng)(至少部分地)接受了這些彈性的企業(yè)結(jié)構(gòu),再輔以科技和強(qiáng)大的公司價值觀將員工凝聚在一起。

H給想要跟隨這種潮流的人們一條警告:目前的證據(jù)表明,和有組織性一樣,無組織性的實(shí)用性也是遞減的,而且如果使用過度,也會產(chǎn)生不利影響。同樣和有組織性一樣我們應(yīng)該以有用性為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去接受無組織性。但我們不應(yīng)該畏懼它—一也不應(yīng)該厚此遵彼。研究還表明,我們應(yīng)該不斷質(zhì)疑現(xiàn)有的設(shè)想是否正確。

以上就是劍14雅思閱讀原文及譯文，更多雅思資料，請點(diǎn)擊：雅思閱讀頻道

更多雅思備考內(nèi)容，請繼續(xù)關(guān)注100留學(xué)教育，專注學(xué)生雅思備考。