GMAT考试写作指导:Issue写作范文十四
分类: GRE-GMAT英语
14. The speaker claims that all organizations should include a clear hierarchy of
accountability because any other structure would work against human nature and
therefore prove fruitless in the end. This claim gives rise to complex issues about human
nature and the social structures best suited to it. In my view, the claim assumes a
distortedly narrow view of human nature, ignoring certain aspects of it that are
undermined by hierarchical structure in ways that ultimately hurt the organization.
First, the organizational structure the speaker recommends undermines the nexus
between worker and product that facilitates efficiency and productivity. When
employees are responsible for just their small component of work, they can easily lose
sight of larger organizational goals and the importance of their role in realizing these
goals. In turn, workers will feel alienated, unimportant, and unmotivated to do work
they are proud of. These effects cannot help but damage the organization in the end.
Second, compartmentalizing tasks in a hierarchical structure stifles creativity. An
acquaintance of mine worked for a company that had established a rigid organizational
barrier between designers and engineers. The designers often provided the engineers
with concepts that were unworkable from an engineering standpoint. Conversely,
whenever an engineer offered a design idea that allowed for easier engineering, the
designers would simply warn the engineer not to interfere. This is a typical case where
organizational barriers operate against creativity, harming the organization in the end.
Third, strict hierarchy undermines the collegiality and cooperation among
coworkers needed for a sense of common purpose and pride in accomplishment. The
message from the designers to the engineers at my friend's company produced just the
opposite—resentment between the two departments, low morale among the engineers
whose creative suggestions were ignored, and ultimate resignation to do inferior work
with an attitude that developing ideas is a waste of time.
In sum, the speaker seems to assume that humans are essentially irresponsible and
unmotivated, and that they therefore need external motivation by way of a layered
bureaucratic structure. The speaker misunderstands human nature, which instead
requires creative exercise and sense of purpose and pride in accomplishment. By stifling
these needs with organizational barriers, the organization is ultimately worse off.
accountability because any other structure would work against human nature and
therefore prove fruitless in the end. This claim gives rise to complex issues about human
nature and the social structures best suited to it. In my view, the claim assumes a
distortedly narrow view of human nature, ignoring certain aspects of it that are
undermined by hierarchical structure in ways that ultimately hurt the organization.
First, the organizational structure the speaker recommends undermines the nexus
between worker and product that facilitates efficiency and productivity. When
employees are responsible for just their small component of work, they can easily lose
sight of larger organizational goals and the importance of their role in realizing these
goals. In turn, workers will feel alienated, unimportant, and unmotivated to do work
they are proud of. These effects cannot help but damage the organization in the end.
Second, compartmentalizing tasks in a hierarchical structure stifles creativity. An
acquaintance of mine worked for a company that had established a rigid organizational
barrier between designers and engineers. The designers often provided the engineers
with concepts that were unworkable from an engineering standpoint. Conversely,
whenever an engineer offered a design idea that allowed for easier engineering, the
designers would simply warn the engineer not to interfere. This is a typical case where
organizational barriers operate against creativity, harming the organization in the end.
Third, strict hierarchy undermines the collegiality and cooperation among
coworkers needed for a sense of common purpose and pride in accomplishment. The
message from the designers to the engineers at my friend's company produced just the
opposite—resentment between the two departments, low morale among the engineers
whose creative suggestions were ignored, and ultimate resignation to do inferior work
with an attitude that developing ideas is a waste of time.
In sum, the speaker seems to assume that humans are essentially irresponsible and
unmotivated, and that they therefore need external motivation by way of a layered
bureaucratic structure. The speaker misunderstands human nature, which instead
requires creative exercise and sense of purpose and pride in accomplishment. By stifling
these needs with organizational barriers, the organization is ultimately worse off.