单选题

单选题 {{B}} How to get to the top{{/B}} Marketing used to be the route to the chief executive's chair，but the world has changed．Now，says Monika Hamori．professor of human resources at Instituto de Empresa in Madrid，it is finance chiefs who are most likely to get the top job，though experience in opera-tions-running parts of the companyis also essential．CFO Magazine found in 2005 that onefifth of chief ex-ecutives in America were former chief financiaI officers，almost double the share of a decade earlier．The importance of quarterly financial reporting，and closer scrutiny since the imposition of the Sarbanesoxley corporategovernance act，have put CFOs in the limelightand given them the chance to shine． Another factor in reaching the top is whether you stay with the company you joined as a youngster．Ms．Hamori's research looked at companies in the SP 500 and the FTSEurofirst 300．She finds that‘lifers’get to the top in 22 years in America and 24 years in Europe：‘Hoppers’who jump between four or more companies，by contrast，take at least 26 years on average to become chief executives．Insiders get promotions that reflect their potential，because their bosses have enough information to be reasonably confident about their ability．When executives switch from one company to another，however，they tend to move less far up the hierarchy，the researchers found． The time taken to reach the top is falling．The average time from first job to chief executive fell from 28 years in 1980 to 24 in 2001．Successful executives are spending less time than they used to in each intermediate joban average of four yearsand they fill five posts on the way up．down from six．One reason for this acceleration is that company hierarchies are flatter than they used to be．Another important shift is the advent of female chief executives． 1n 2001 women accounted for 11%of bosses at leading American companies．ac-cording to the Hamori/Cappelli survey；in the early 1980s there were none． America is usually regarded as the home of raw capitalism．with youthful managers hopping from firm to firm and pushing their way to the top．But the HamorL/Cappelli study and another by Booz Company，a consultancy，show that Europe is a more dynamic and harsher environ-menl than America or Japan for chief executives．For a start，European chief executives are younger，with an average age of 54．compared with over 56 in America．The Hamor/Cappelli study shows that 26%of American bos-ses were lifers，compared with only 18%in Europe． The Europeans also have a harder time once they get to the top.Booz ＆ Company's annual survey of chiefexecutive succession shows that 17.6%of European bosses moved on last year．compared with 15%of Americans and 10%of Japanese．Chief executives．the survey found，last longer in America：the average tenure over the past decade was just over nine years．But in Europe the average tenure over the same period was less than seven years． Moreover．a whopping 37%of changes at the top in Europe were more or less firings，according to Booz，compared with only 27%in America and 12%in Japan．Booz puts this down to the more recent tightening of corporate governance in Europe,Another Booz finding is common to both sides of the Atlantic：looking back over recent years，board disputes and power struggles lie behind a third of chiefexecutive firings．In short，shareholder activism is making its presence felt，putting pressure on bosses to perform．

单选题A One dimension of loss of control in management might be labeled "inward", toward computers, via artificial intelligence and greater sophistication in general. In this ever more pervasive environment, control flows not toward subordinates or teams, but toward electronics. Circuits, memory, and software seem to replace what is in a manager''s head. One specific example might be the confrontations between man and electronics in chess matches. Granted, winning at chess does not have to mean that "the machines are taking over" any more than cloning a sheep automatically presages doing so with people. Nevertheless, these events should provoke serious thought. In 1997, an IBM computer called "Deep Blue" was pitted against world champion Gary Kasparov and beat him in a majority of matches, although earlier in the year the reverse was true. Nagging questions arise: Can the creation surpass the creator? Are humans kidding themselves by thinking they will always be "smarter than the machine"? B Management, of course, represents only one part of society, but such questions are relevant here too. Programmed decision-making is likely to broaden? inevitably, some would say. One reason is, simply, "What can be done will be done." Another is that this is essentially applying technology to what management has always been advised to do: set policies. Once made, "generic" decisions can be efficient time-savers. One "maxi-decision" can replace repetitive, similar "mini-decisions". However, both people and situations are infinitely variable. Is it possible to anticipate everything, even with sophisticated software deploying gigabytes of memory and the ability to "learn" by past mistakes? It will not happen overnight, but the potential clearly exists. C In addition to a threatened loss of control inward, other threats have also developed, all oriented "outward". One example is outsourcing in general, and using temporary employment agencies in particular. By trying to reduce costs, companies have discovered that letting specializing firms perform certain work can increase efficiency. Often they can remove a substantial work burden and save money at the same time, such as with the initial screening of job applicants. Regardless of advantages, however, if such efforts are not done well and monitored closely, they risk entropy and decrease management control. D Temporary employment, or "temp" agencies can involve similar advantages and risks. Because people employed this way are often paid less, have less generous benefits, and are less likely to have union membership security, their services can be obtained at substantial cost savings to employers. One risk here is displaced loyalty. Because control follows the dollar, and because temp workers are paid directly by the temp agency, problems can be encountered. Even among permanent workers, employee loyalty is said to be weaker today than earlier. Though not inevitable, a danger exists because a more tenuous relationship is present when a firm employs people only temporarily. Less loyalty, with all the inherent implications, can again mean less management control. E Telecommuting has become another potential challenge to management control. Work formerly done at the office is now done at home, on the road, at satellite offices or at dedicated neighborhood facilities typically shared by employees of several firms. Working at home can have many advantages. However, a disadvantage not yet fully appreciated is how remote control of employees working at widely scattered locations is likely to affect managing. "Remote" can be interpreted as outward migration of the essential control function. "Outward" in turn, can easily translate into "less" or at least "more difficult". Supervision at a distance, even with instant communication, can require more skills than when employees are physically observable. 0. "Dilution" of control inward refers to the control flowing towards electronics. (A)

单选题What is the first step before a personal investment as many financial planners suggest?

单选题[此试题无题干]

单选题Jimleaveshishouseearlyinthemorningbecause

单选题On Monday, October 19, 1987, a wave of selling triggered widespread price declines in stock markets from New York to Australia. On that day, now infamous as "Black Monday", over 600 million shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Dow Jones Industrial Average of the prices of 30 stocks of major US companies lost 22.6 percent of its value on that memorable day, plunging 508 points in the panicked rush to sell. What is the stock market, and how is it affected by the forces of supply and demand? The stock market is the means through which previously issued corporate stocks, shares of ownership in a corporation, are traded. Stock exchanges are organizations whose members act as intermediaries to buy and sell stocks for their clients. About 80 percent of all stock trading in the United States takes place at the New York Stock Exchange. There are other stock exchanges in the United States as well as in Paris, London, Sydney and Tokyo. How are stock prices determined? The answer, as you might expect, is by supply and demand. However, the forces influencing the prices of corporate stocks are quite different from those influencing the prices of goods and services. People and organizations that buy and hold stock do so for the incomes they hope to earn. The incomes depend on dividends paid to stock holders, changes in the price of stock over time, and the expected return on alternative investments. On any given day in the stock market, there are orders to buy and orders to sell. The orders to buy constitute the quantity of a stock demanded at the current (or anticipated) price per share, while the orders to sell constitute the quantity supplied at that price. The chief influence on both the supply of and demand for stocks is the income potential of holding the stock com pared to the income potential of holding alternative assets such as bonds, other types of securities, or real property like buildings and land. On the New York Stock Exchange, trading in all stocks is continuous. A specialist is as signed to oversee trading in each stock. This specialist is a "broker's broker" who tries to adjust the price of the stock so that quantity demanded equals quantity supplied. However, the specialist is also allowed to purchase the stock to hold as a personal investment if no buyer can be found. In this way the specialist can exert some influence on the supply of and demand for stocks, and will do so if it's profitable. On October 19, 1987, there were hardly any buy orders, and the markets were flooded with sell orders. Because of the tremendous surplus of stocks at the prevailing prices, specialists and call clerks lowered prices until quantity demanded equaled quantity supplied. When Black Mon day finally reeled to a close, many a portfolio had lost over a fifth of the value it had the day be fore.

单选题Hecamefrom______.

单选题A school of behavioral economists has long argued that when it comes to money, people are incapable of acting in their own best interest -- that decisions result from impulse and overconfidence as much as from reason. Smart folks, in other words, are just as likely to soon part with their money as all those fools.The truly bad news is that smart companies are just as prone to make terrible decisions for the same reason. Take one of the biggest business decisions of all— merger. Research consistently shows that most mergers fail in every sense of the word, from falling stock prices to lower profitability after the merger. Yet, even with suffering capital markets, a recent Hewitt Associates study found that more than half of the 70 senior executives and board members surveyed planned to step up merger activity during the next three years. Why? Call it executive hubris. CEOs are not different from the rest of us in that they fall prey to the self-enhancement bias: we all like to think we are intelligent and efficacious. So we overestimate our abilities. That's why studies show that significantly more than half of all people believe they are above average -- in negotiating ability, even in income, This overly optimistic view is, of course, worse for CEOs- afar all, they generally are way above average. Btu the result is the same: bad decisions. One study, by business school professors Matthew Hayward and Donald Hambrick, showed that the greater the hubris of the chief executive, the more a company tends to overpay for acquisitions.The aphorism "Pride goeth before a fall" seems to hold true in business too. When executives are confronted with the appalling statistics, their first response goes something like this: "That may happen to other companies, but not ours. This acquisition will be more successful. We have learned."The next CEO challenge is persuading a possibly recalcitrant board of directors to let you pursue your urge to merge. Hubris, again, returns to center stage. You paint a picture of doom and gloom that will result if you don't merge. Take a look at one of the rationales given for the merger of Hewlett-Packard and Compaq, two companies with poor operating track records. The argument was that PCs were becoming a commodity industry, consolidation was inevitable, and if HP didn't do the consolidating, it would soon be one of the consolidated. Here's another variant of the same rationale: If you don't buy the target company, your competitor will -- and you'll lose out. This gambit uses the influence strategy of scarcity -- we want what we can't have, and we find particularly desirable anything that we may lose to someone else.Here's how to avoid hubris-fueled merger mania. First, follow the adage from medicine: Forgive and remember. Go back and evaluate past merger decisions, admit when you were wrong, figure out why, and learn from it.Second, beware of too much agreement in the board room. When Alfred Sloan ran General Motors, if he couldn't find opposition to a decision, he'd postpone it. He interpreted a lack of dissent as a lack of analysis. Find, even encourage, people to disagree with you, so that all sides of the decision are examined. Mostly, we like those who agree with us. But as one of my colleagues likes to point out, if two people agree all the time, one of them is redundant.The urge to merge is still like an addiction in many companies: Doing deals is much more fun and interesting than fixing fundamental problems. So, as in dealing with any other addiction or temptation, maybe it is best to just say no.

单选题 {{B}}Task Two-Attitudes{{/B}} ·For questions 18-22, match the extracts with the reasons, listed A-H. ·For each extract, decide which the reason each speaker describes. ·Write one letter (A-H) next to the number of the extract. A is good at managing B gets a lot of time off between shifts C has a lot of spare time D has a terrific boss E not only write reports but also a lot of other tasks F has a good salary G the job is interesting and challenging H works long hours but interesting

单选题What if You're on the Receiving End?For most employers, the principal concern is the employee who takes trade secrets to a new job -- but what about the employer who unwittingly hires someone who has stolen trade secrets? An employer is going to be liable if he knew or he should have known that this employee was (21) with trade secrets. Thus, it's important to do an entrance interview (22) on trade secrets, ask him outright if he signed a nondisclosure agreement. If so, review it. Show the employee the (23) provisions of the Economic Espionage Act and have him sign a statement (24) that he understand what the potential liability is and he's not bringing any trade secrets with him.There's a "very fine line" between hiring an employee for "general knowledge, skills and experience" and hiring an employee to gain (25) to a competitor's trade secrets. But, if the (26) employer has not specified to the worker what information is secret and what information is not, you will be well insulated if you have the worker sign a one-page form in which he or she agrees not to (27) company policy against disclosing or using the trade secret of former employer.But once an employer is on (28) that an employee is using someone else's trade secrets, the employer must (29) action: even then, the employer may not be able to avoid liability entirely.Firing an offending employee as soon as the misappropriation is discovered may not (30) the employer of liability, but it goes a long way toward showing a judge or jury that the company limited the damage to the extent that they could.

单选题Why, according to Selye, is a little stress good to employees to some extent?

单选题If a manager is having difficulties managing his or her subordinates, ______ would be recommended.

单选题The use of stock options as a means of compensation ______

单选题· Read the following article about marketing and ethics and the questions on the opposite page.· For each question (15-20), mark one letter (A, B, C or D) on your Answer Sheet. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability are ethical choices that companies make about how they do business. Current thinking indicates that, as a society, we are beginning to appreciate more fully that there must be limits to our consumption of natural resources, and that business activities must take greater account of this impact on society and economies, as well as the environment in which we live. It is well documented that the corporate sector is in a position of unparalleled dominance and that the global resources of a rising number of multinational companies dwarf many of the national economies in which they operate. Market liberalisation and privatisation have created new global markets, and extended the role of the private sector in public services and civil infrastructure projects. As a result, businesses are now heavily involved in public policy issues throughout the world. For these reasons, businesses must be accountable - not just to shareholders but to consumers, employees and other stakeholders. This means that as corporations continue to grow in power, their responsibility grows too, increasing the number of ethical considerations they must face. Companies who ignore this development will increasingly find themselves challenged by different groups of stakeholders questioning the values and practices of businesses. These issues present major challenges for the role of marketing, and an opportunity for a timely response for individual marketers to consider what this means in their day-to-day work. Marketing is the guardian of the brand, so a company's marketing team must be able to take account of how social and cultural changes impact on the health of the brand. How is this to be addressed by marketers? How widely does marketing engage with the company's stakeholders? A more holistic, inclusive approach across the business is required to safeguard the brand's intangible assets of trust, goodwill and long-term value to the business. Marketers may aim to establish whether they can connect with customers in a way that extends the marketer's role beyond merely communicating the offer to prospective buyers. Marketing's role could well come to be seen more broadly in terms of connecting with stakeholders not only in terms of value, but values. In a world where intangible assets and corporate reputation are critical components of corporate success, it is inevitable that these newer approaches to marketing are becoming involved with ethics and sustainability issues. It means that marketers can enjoy new opportunities to add value to brands. There are tangible benefits to be gained in product development, innovation and competitive advantage when broader sustainability and ethical considerations are taken into account. But if marketing is about selling more and sustainability is about consuming fewer resources and producing less pollution, how on earth are marketers supposed to pursue both goals at the same time? Perhaps it's easy to overestimate the depth and scale of the opposition between these goals - and to underestimate the degree to which marketers can align traditional corporate objectives with those of ethics and sustainability. Marketing's core role is to align what the business produces to what the market wants - the route to increased sales. It all means that the firm must invest money, people and resources only in the things that add value for customers. It requires the business not to waste any effort, money or resources doing things that don't add value for users. Responsible marketing, in other words, is actually all about helping business avoid and eliminate waste, as well as continuing to manage natural or manmade resources. It is an important role for marketers and one that has not been fully recognised or appreciated in terms of potential to create innovative solutions.

单选题Company Structure Most organisations have hierarchical or pyramidal structure, with one person or a group of people at the top, and an increasing number of people below them at each successive level. There is a clear line or chain of command running down the (21) All the people in the organisation know what decisions they are able to (22) , who their superior is. Some people in an organisation have colleagues who help them: for example, there might be an Assistant to the Marketing Manager. This is known as a staff position: its holder has no line (23) , and is not integrated into the chain of command, unlike, for example, the Assistant Marketing Manager, who is number two in the marketing department. Yet the activities of most companies are too complicated to be (24) in a single hierarchy. Shortly before the First World War, the French industrialist Henry Fayol organised his coal-mining business according to the (25) that it had to carry out, He is generally credited with (26) functional organisation. Today, most large manufacturing organisations have a functional structure, including production, finance, marketing, sales, and personnel or human resources department. This means, for example, that the production and marketing departments cannot make financial decisions (27) consulting the finance department. Functional organisation is efficient, but there are two standard criticisms. Firstly, people are usually more (28) with the success of their department than that of the company, so there are permanent battles between, for example, finance and marketing, or marketing and production, which have (29) goals. Secondly, separating functions is (30) to encourage innovation.

单选题Firms can ensure responsibility to customers by ______ A．safe manufacturing techniques. B．proper disposal of toxic waste. C．employee diversity programs. D．soliciting feedback about products. E．full financial disclosure.