Many managers are influenced by dangerous myths about pay that lead to counterproductive decisions about how their companies compensate 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. 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 same: one company could pay 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 processes, or other factors. The confusion of costs with rates persists partly because labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact on their company'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 company's most malleable financial variable: cutting wages appears an easier way to control costs than such options as reconfiguring work processes or altering product design.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two. For example, prominent business journals often remark on 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 incentives to keep such myths alive. First, although some of these consulting firms have recently broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, their mainstay continues to be advising companies on changing their compensation practices. Suggesting that a company's performance can be improved in some other way than by altering its pay system may be empirically correct but contrary to the consultants' interests. Furthermore, changes to the compensation system may appear to be simpler to implement than changes to other aspects of an organization, so managers are more likely to find such advice from consultants palatable. Finally, to the extant that changes in compensation create new problems, the consultants will continue to have work solving the problems that result from their advice.
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?
问题:请教Tina老师,感觉这道题又暴露了我的某项能力欠缺(这回倒是抱死细节)。。这道题我选的B,选择的理由是这个advice所在的段落里都是为了说明二者相等这个myth的来源,且通过the myth is also perpetuated by the compensation consulting industry 使得二者之间建立了关系。因此我觉得B这么说没啥问题,二者都以此为核心观点。为啥不选A其实是我不太认同它所提到的方向,我觉得advice的三个论述:与咨询顾问利益相关,这个方案更易操作,这个方案会产生新的问题都推不出来fail to bring about the intended changes。产生新的问题就是没有带来intended changes吗?比如我的目的是想控制a鱼的数量,结果a鱼数量的确控制住了,但是却产生了别的问题,但我的intended change还是达到了啊。所以我觉得从产生新的问题推到没有带来预期的改变这个推论也太牵强了吧。。希望老师解答,谢谢!
查看答疑
问题:这篇阅读做的时候很不幸的整篇没抓住重点,后来review的时候整理下逻辑脉络后这题还是没弄清,不知是不是原文理解的还不对
经理被某些myth影响,导致counterproductive的决定,关于如何补偿员工。
有一种myth是labor rates怎样怎样,Myth这么说是因为。。。但是实际上labor cost和labor rate不一样 因为。。。这种混淆是因为。。。加之。。。
说这两者相同的这种myth,还被business journalists支持,例如。。。同时又被consulting支持,因为(change compensation system依旧是主要工作)和(简单)和(能进一步为自己带来工作)
自己还是感觉很奇怪,尤其最后关于consulting的那部分,说的都是change compensation system啊,是为了证明他们也支持myth吗? 全文是不是主要说的把labor rate等同于labor cost不对(下一道题中作者关于compensation的观点选择High labor rates are not necessarily inconsistent with the goals of companies that want to reduce costs是不是就根据这个?
然后这道题就彻底困惑了,感觉哪个都不像对。。。难道是根据最后一句话change将带来problem??在这篇文章上纠结了很久,求老师赐教!
查看答疑
问题:看题干,觉得advice是关键词,于是定位文章第二段First那一句。
说了changing the compensation system,于是有AD两答案。
选了D,正确答案为A。
不知道AD如何排除,请老师解答!谢谢~
查看答疑