2. 考研
  3. It is only natural for leaders to try to make the most of their strengths. The theory of comparative advantage directs people, a

It is only natural for leaders to try to make the most of their strengths. The theory of comparative advantage directs people, a

admin2015-02-09  51
问题     It is only natural for leaders to try to make the most of their strengths. The theory of comparative advantage directs people, as well as countries and firms, to focus on what they are good at. Management experts have tended to concur: one of the bestselling business books of recent years is called Now Discover Your Strengths. When business schools(and indeed business columnists)profile bosses, they often assume that more is better. But is this right? Three recent books express some doubts.
    In Fear Your Strengths, Robert Kaplan and Robert Kaiser argue, "what you are best at could be your biggest problem." Forcefulness can become bullying; decisiveness can turn into pigheadedness; niceness can develop into indecision. In From Smart to Wise, Prasad Kaipa and Navi Radjou argue that the strengths that today’s leaders are most likely to overuse are what Americans called "smarts"—the sort of skills managers pick up studying at business school or working in consultancies. In Tipping Sacred Cows, Jake Breeden goes further, arguing that many so-called management virtues are just as likely to be vices in disguise.
    These three books are all valuable exercises in iconoclasm—deliberate destruction of icons. But the trouble with iconoclasm when you apply it to the analysis of leadership is that you can go on forever. Many successful leaders are successful precisely because they push their strengths to the limit. Richard Branson has turned Virgin into a global brand by relentlessly exploiting his two biggest strengths: his ability to take on "big bad wolves"—firms that are overcharging and underserving the public—and his talent for infusing Virgin with a counter-cultural personality.
    Leadership skills are context-dependent. Margaret Thatcher was undoubtedly a nightmare to work for. In 1981 her closest advisers were so angry with her that they produced a memo that criticized her for breaking "every rule of good man-management", including bullying her weaker comrades, criticizing her colleagues in front of officials and refusing to give praise or credit. It warned her that she was "likely to become another failed Tory prime minister sitting with Edward Heath". But her abrasive style was exactly what Britain needed in the 1980s.
    The word that is too often missing from leadership studies is "judgment". Everybody involved in the business is desperate to appear scientific: academics because they want to get research grants and consultants because they want to prove that they are selling something more than just instinct. But judgment is what matters most, and it is hard to measure. It takes judgment to resist getting carried away with one quality(such as decisiveness)or one measure of success(such as the share price). It takes judgment to know when to modulate your virtues and when to pull out all the stops. Unfortunately judgment is in rather shorter supply than leadership versatility indices.
In her advisers’ eyes, Margaret Thatcher was
选项 A、a nightmare.
B、a poor leader.
C、a failure.
D、a savior.
答案B
解析 Margaret Thatcher出现在文章第四段，文中第2句指出与撒切尔共事是一个噩梦，第3句具体说明了她的亲密顾问们如何批评她不具备优秀领导者的技能。因此，在她的顾问眼中，玛格丽特·撒切尔是一个很差的领导者，B项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/mdK4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)