【#新概念英語# #職場新概念英語（64）#】新概念英語之所以經(jīng)久不衰是因為以其全新的教學理念，有趣的課文內(nèi)容和全面的技能訓練，為英語學習者排憂解難，深受廣大英語學習者的歡迎和喜愛。想要學好英語的你，怎能錯過？快來加入學習吧！®無憂考網(wǎng)為您提供，希望以下內(nèi)容能夠為大家的新概念英語學習提供幫助!

【篇一】讓員工敢于說不

“I don’t ask questions. I simply comply with the instructions given to me.” So said Malusi Gigaba, South Africa’s new finance minister, after Jacob Zuma, the country’s president, appointed him to the job last month after firing Pravin Gordhan.

Far from obeying Mr Zuma’s instructions, Mr Gordhan had asked questions, persistently, about corruption and what he saw as inappropriate government spending. Rating agencies greeted the dismissal of Mr Gordhan and the appointment of Mr Gigaba by cutting South Africa’s credit rating to junk. Tens of thousands of South Africans took to the streets in protest at Mr Zuma.

The protesters, and the rating agencies, understood that a country whose senior officials ask no questions when confronted with dubious behaviour is heading for ruin. The same is true of companies. Arthur Andersen, Enron and Lehman Brothers all crashed because people inside them, seeing their organisations taking wrong turns, did not ask their superiors: “Why are we doing this?”

By contrast, when Jes Staley, Barclays’ chief executive, ordered staff to find out who had sent two uncomplimentary letters about a newly hired employee, they did not run off to do his bidding. They pushed back. Barclays’ compliance department had classified the letters as whistleblowing and told Mr Staley that any attempt to track down the writer was not allowed.

When Mr Staley tried a second time to find the letter writer, enlisting a US law enforcement agency, someone inside the company reported him to the board. Mr Staley is now under investigation by regulators in the UK and US. Barclays’ board has formally reprimanded him and plans a substantial cut to his bonus.

Whatever the outcome of this murky saga — it is not yet clear whether this was a true case of whistleblowing or anonymous malice — the Barclays system seems to have worked. An attempt by the boss to brush aside the rules failed.

After a series of scandals, most damagingly over Libor manipulation, there are Barclays staff prepared to say: “However senior you are, what you are asking me to do is wrong and I am not going to do it.” Righteous disobedience of this sort is seldom career-enhancing, but it can help ensure the company’s health and even survival.

Most employees seldom confront such stark “really, must I?” orders from their bosses. But many face everyday managerial boneheadedness — instructions that, in their needless rigidity, damage the company, its customers and its reputation.

Last week’s order to United Continental cabin crew to remove four passengers from an aircraft about to take off from Chicago was an excellent example. Having failed to find volunteers to leave the plane to make way for United employees travelling to take charge of another flight, the airline nominated four passengers to leave and, in videos seen around the world, called in airport security staff who dragged out and injured the most recalcitrant, a Vietnamese-American doctor.

It is harder to persuade passengers off a flight after they have boarded it than when they check in, or at the gate. But airlines have more at their disposal than the $800 United was offering passengers to leave the plane. They could have told passengers their next flight would be business class, or that they could have a free flight in addition to the next day’s one. If there were still no takers, they could have offered free return flights to Paris or Bangkok (safe in the knowledge that the volunteers would be able to take advantage of the offer only in off-peak travel periods when there were empty seats anyway).

There are enough passengers, even those already on the plane — or “boarded and luggaged and situated”, as Oscar Munoz, United’s chief executive, put it — who are ready give up their seats if the price is right.

Mr Munoz, who issued a series of badly received statements, now says he understands that his flight attendants need more freedom to act sensibly. “We do empower our frontline folks to a degree, but we need to expand and adjust those policies to allow a little bit more common sense,” he said.

It will take a determined effort, and a long time, to implant that culture in the company. Employees need more than empowerment. They need to feel they have the right to say no, as Mr Gordhan and some at Barclays did. Blind obedience may please the boss. But those who demand it do not deserve to be in charge.

【篇二】譯文

“我不會問問題。我只服從命令，”南非新任財政部長馬盧西?吉加巴(Malusi Gigaba)是這么說的。前一陣子，南非總統(tǒng)雅各布?祖馬(Jacob Zuma)在炒掉普拉溫?戈登(Pravin Gordhan)后，任命他接任財長。

此前戈登沒有服從祖馬的命令，他問了一個接一個問題，內(nèi)容涉及腐 敗以及他所認為的不合理的政府開支。對于戈登被解職以及吉加巴被任命，評級機構(gòu)的回應是把南非的信用評級降至垃圾級。數(shù)萬名南非人走上街頭抗 議祖馬。

抗 議者和評級機構(gòu)都明白，如果一個國家的高 官們在面對可疑行為時不聞不問，這個國家注定要毀滅。公司也是如此。安達信(Arthur Andersen)、安然(Enron)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)破產(chǎn)的原因，都是內(nèi)部人士看到公司做出錯誤之舉后沒有詢問他們的上級：“我們?yōu)槭裁匆�這么做？”

相比之下，當巴克萊(Barclays)首席執(zhí)行官杰斯?斯特利(Jes Staley)命令員工追查是誰寄出了兩封批評一位新聘員工的信件時，他們沒有積極執(zhí)行他的命令。他們進行了抵制。巴克萊合規(guī)部門此前已把這些信件列為舉報，并告訴斯特利，追查寫信者的任何企圖都是受到禁止的。

當斯特利第二次試圖追查寫信者，還請來美國的一個執(zhí)法部門時，該公司內(nèi)部人士把他告上了董事會。斯特利現(xiàn)在正在接受美國和英國監(jiān)管機構(gòu)的調(diào)查。巴克萊董事會已正式對他提出批評，并計劃大幅削減他的獎金。

不管這個詭異的故事結(jié)果如何（尚不清楚這是真實的舉報還是匿名的惡意行為），巴克萊的制度似乎發(fā)生了作用。老板試圖漠視規(guī)定的企圖失敗了。

在經(jīng)歷了一系列丑聞后（嚴重的是倫敦銀行間同業(yè)拆借利率(Libor)操縱丑聞），巴克萊員工敢于說：“不管你的級別多么高，如果你要求我做的事情是錯的，我就不會照做�！边@種正義的違抗命令很少有利于事業(yè)的晉升，但它有助于確保公司的健康，甚至生存。

多數(shù)員工很少會遇到老板發(fā)出這類讓人為難的命令。但很多人會遭遇日常的管理愚蠢——僵硬得毫無必要的指令，對公司及其客戶和聲譽都有損害。

近聯(lián)合大陸(United Continental)機組人員接到命令，要求讓4名乘客離開一架即將從芝加哥起飛的飛機，這就是一個很好的例子。航空公司未能找到自愿下機的乘客為執(zhí)行另一個航班的員工讓座，于是隨機挑選了4名乘客下機。在全世界都看到的視頻中，他們叫來了機場保安，把不聽話的一位越南裔美籍醫(yī)生強行拖離飛機并致其受傷。

在乘客登機后說服乘客下機，要比在他們辦理登記手續(xù)或者在登機口等待時更難。但與美聯(lián)航向乘客提出的800美元下機補償相比，航空公司應該有更多的辦法。他們本可以告訴乘客他們的下次航班將升級為商務艙，或者除了搭乘第二天的航班，他們還可以獲得一張免費機票。如果仍然沒有自愿下機的乘客，他們可以提供到巴黎或曼谷的免費返程機票（反正他們可以限制志愿者在本來就肯定有空座的旅行淡季才能使用這種機票）。

如果價格合適，就會有足夠多的乘客，甚至那些已經(jīng)登機的乘客（或者就像美聯(lián)航首席執(zhí)行官奧斯卡?穆尼奧斯(Oscar Munoz)所說的那樣，“已登機、放好行李和就座的乘客”）愿意放棄座位。

穆尼奧斯發(fā)布了一系列反響糟糕的聲明，他現(xiàn)在表示，他認識到，他的空乘人員需要更多的自由去采取理智行動。他表示：“我們確實給予我們的一線員工一定權(quán)限，但我們需要擴大并調(diào)整這些政策，為常理稍微多留一些空間。”

要在該公司營造這種文化，需要堅持不懈的努力和很長時間。員工需要的不僅是授權(quán)。他們需要知道自己有權(quán)利說不，就像南非前財長戈登和巴克萊的一些員工所做的那樣。盲目服從或許會取悅上司。但要求這么做的人不配擔任管理職位。

【篇三】如何不斷退路的辭去工作

Looking for a job is a job in and of itself. You have to search for the right gig, update your résumé, write some cover letters, and then go on interviews - all without any guarantees. So when you get that coveted offer, it seems inevitable that you'll accept. But how do you decline when it turns out the opportunity isn't quite right?

Getting that far in the interview process likely means you have at least some fond feelings for the company you're about to turn down; you may even want to work for them at some point in the future. So, you need to make sure you decline graciously.

Santone suggests following up after you decline with a handwritten note that expresses your gratitude again, and extends an offer to stay in touch. "Then, you're expanding your network," she explains. "Just because you didn't take a job with them doesn't mean that you can't have a relationship."

"Part of the job-search process is, in fact, declining offers," says Mark Gasche, a career management leader at the loan-refinancing company at SoFi. The two main mistakes he says people make: leaving a voicemail that's brief, difficult to interpret, and leaves no room for dialogue; or writing an email that feels impolite and can be forwarded around. (You don't want your terse/awkward "no" to become a viral hit at the office.)

People usually go with the route of least resistance out of fear of confrontation. Instead, the best thing to do is contact the person who has worked with you most during the process and ask if they have time to discuss where you are. That might not always be someone from HR, Gasche says. Call whoever it is on the phone and be honest, he suggests - but not too honest. For example, if your reason for saying "no" is that the manager you interviewed with rubbed you the wrong way and you'd really prefer not to report to them, you might want to keep that to yourself.

"If there was something that you viewed as negative, I wouldn't go there. There's just no point," he says.

【篇四】譯文

找工作這件事本身就是一份工作。你必須搜索合適的工作，更新自己的簡歷，寫一些求職信，然后去面試--而這一切都沒有保證。所以當你收到夢寐以求的工作機會時，接受這份工作似乎理所當然。但當你發(fā)現(xiàn)這一工作機會并不適合你時，你又該如何拒絕呢？

面試過程進入到后幾輪很可能說明你至少是有點喜歡這家你即將拒絕的公司的；甚至你可能想以后在這家公司工作。所以，拒絕的時候一定要語氣親切。

圣托內(nèi)建議在拒絕工作機會后，手寫一封便簽，再次表達自己的感激之情，然后注明希望能保持聯(lián)系。"這樣你就擴大了自己的網(wǎng)絡，"她解釋道。"你沒有接受他們的工作邀請并不意味著你們之間不能建立友情。"

"事實上，找工作的過程之一就是拒絕工作機會，"索菲貸款再融資公司的職業(yè)管理負責人馬克·加舍說道。他說人們主要犯的兩個錯誤就是：只給對方發(fā)送一條簡短的、難以解讀的語音留言，不留任何對話余地；或是寫一封給人看上去不禮貌且可以轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)的郵件。（你可不想你那簡潔/尷尬的拒絕變成紅極辦公室的網(wǎng)紅吧。）

由于害怕對峙，人們通常會采取溫和的方式。然而，好的方式就是聯(lián)系面試中和你聯(lián)系多的那個人，詢問他們是否有時間探討你的職位問題。這個人并不一定總是人事，加舍說道。他建議：打電話給任何在線工作人員，誠實的說清情況，但也不要太過誠實。比如，你拒絕的原因是面試你的經(jīng)理惹惱了你，你情愿不向他報到，那你好還是把這些話憋在心里。

"如果你覺得有些事情很負面，那好也不要說。因為說了也沒有意義，"他說道。