2012年6月大学英语六级真题文字版_第8页

Section B
　　Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A), B), C) and D). You should decide on the best choice and mark the corresponding letter on Answer sheet 2 with a single line through the centre.
　　Passage One
　　Questions 52 to 56 are based on the following passage.
　　As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partially because it appears people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and exert more effort, to achieve those goals.
　　What’s far less understood by scientists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting.
　　Newspapers relay daily accounts of goal-setting prevalent in industries and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street , yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-trumpeted practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis , and unethical (不道德的)behavior in general.
　　“Goals are widely used and promoted as having really beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to exert more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in unethical behaviors,” says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at Penn’s Wharton School.
　　“It turns out there’s no economic benefit to just having a goal---you just get a psychological benefit” Schweitzer says. “But in many cases, goals have economic rewards that make them more powerful.” 中 华 考 试 网
　　A prime example Schweitzer and his colleagues cite is the 2004 collapse of energy-trading giant Enron, where managers used financial incentives to motivate salesmen to meet specific revenue goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is the actual trades were not profitable.
　　Other studies have shown that saddling employees with unrealistic goals can compel them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case in the early 1990s when Sears imposed a sales quota on its auto repair staff. It prompted employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.
　　Schweitzer concedes his research runs counter to a very large body of literature that commends the many benefits of goal-setting. Advocates of the practice have taken issue with his team’s use of such evidence as news accounts to support his conclusion that goal-setting is widely over-prescribed
　　In a rebuttal (反驳) paper, Dr. Edwin Locke writes:“Goal-setting is not going away. Organizations cannot thrive without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can thrive without goals to provide a sense of purpose.”
　　But Schweitzer contends the “mounting causal evidence” linking goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help spotlight issues that merit caution and further investigation. “Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects,” he says.
　　“Goal-setting does help coordinate and motivate people. My idea would be to combine that with careful oversight, a strong organizational culture, and make sure the goals that you use are going to be constructive and not significantly harm the organization,” Schweitzer says.