首页-日语 - 地盘 - 记录 - 日志 - 下载 - 查词 - 翻译 - 排行
F8键(暂停/播放)| F9键(重复此句)| 左键或ALT+Z(上一句)| 右键或ALT+X(下一句)
听写窗口
译文窗口
注释窗口

您没有登录,系统不能保存您的听写记录和听写错词,点击此处登录

听写提交之后可查看原文
So why do so few managers get things right the second or third time?
Let's consider one reason for failure - placing too much trust in the people who are running the successful operation, the 'experts' shall we say.
Managers who want to apply existing knowledge typically start off by going to an expert,
such as the person who designed and is running a successful department store - and picking their brains.
Now,this approach can be used if you want to gain a rough understanding of a particular system, or understand smaller,isolated problems.
The trouble is, even the expert doesn't fully grasp the whole thing because when it comes to complex systems,
the individual components of the process are interwoven with one another.
The expert never has complete access to the necessary information.
And the situation's complicated even further by the fact that experts are usually not aware of their own ignorance.
The ignorance can take various forms.
For instance, a lot of details of the system are invisible to managers.
Some may be difficult to describe - learned on the job and well known by workers perhaps, but impossible to describe in a way that's helpful.
那么为什么只有少数管理者能在第二次或第三次尝试中成功呢?
让我们考虑一个失败的原因,对以往经营成功案例的人太过信任,也就是我们所称的“专家”。
管理者想从专家身上运用已有的知识并征求他们的意见,
正是这些人设计并运营了一家成功的商店。
这种方法可以用在当你想要了解某一特殊体系的概况或了解单独的小问题时。
问题是,因为一涉及这个复杂的系统,甚至专家都无法完全掌控整个局面,
而且这个程序中的单个成份又与其他成份交织在一起。
专家从来都无法获得需要的信息。
而且专家对自己的无知还不自知,这使情况更加复杂。
这种无知可以表现为多种形式。
例如,管理者看不到系统里的许多细节。
也许有些细节在工作中知道却很难描述,并且工人们都清楚,但是他们不能用一种有效的方式表达出来。
暂无注释
听写注意
1.为防止灌水听写至少要输入超过10个单词方可提交同时听写内容不能粘贴;
2.标点符号不用填写,听写比对会忽略掉标点符号;
3.单词与单词之间要留有空格,同时数字(年月或金额)请用阿拉伯数字。
可友留言
加载中...
我来说2句
抱歉,您需要先登录后才能留言
谁正在听写
得分最高
最新听写
热门听写