【www.scabjd.com--英语听力】

【导语】新概念英语之所以经久不衰是因为以其全新的教学理念，有趣的课文内容和全面的技能训练，为英语学习者排忧解难，深受广大英语学习者的欢迎和喜爱。想要学好英语的你，怎能错过？快来加入学习吧！为您提供，希望以下内容能够为大家的新概念英语学习提供帮助!

【篇一】让员工敢于说不

“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】译文

“我不会问问题。我只服从命令，”南非新任财政部长马卢西?吉加巴(Malusi Gigaba)是这么说的。前一阵子，南非总统雅各布?祖马(Jacob Zuma)在炒掉普拉温?戈登(Pravin Gordhan)后，任命他接任财长。

此前戈登没有服从祖马的命令，他问了一个接一个问题，内容涉及腐 败以及他所认为的不合理的政府开支。对于戈登被解职以及吉加巴被任命，评级机构的回应是把南非的信用评级降至垃圾级。数万名南非人走上街头抗 议祖马。

抗 议者和评级机构都明白，如果一个国家的高 官们在面对可疑行为时不闻不问，这个国家注定要毁灭。公司也是如此。安达信(Arthur Andersen)、安然(Enron)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)破产的原因，都是内部人士看到公司做出错误之举后没有询问他们的上级：“我们为什么要这么做？”

相比之下，当巴克莱(Barclays)首席执行官杰斯?斯特利(Jes Staley)命令员工追查是谁寄出了两封批评一位新聘员工的信件时，他们没有积极执行他的命令。他们进行了抵制。巴克莱合规部门此前已把这些信件列为举报，并告诉斯特利，追查写信者的任何企图都是受到禁止的。

当斯特利第二次试图追查写信者，还请来美国的一个执法部门时，该公司内部人士把他告上了董事会。斯特利现在正在接受美国和英国监管机构的调查。巴克莱董事会已正式对他提出批评，并计划大幅削减他的奖金。

不管这个诡异的故事结果如何（尚不清楚这是真实的举报还是匿名的恶意行为），巴克莱的制度似乎发生了作用。老板试图漠视规定的企图失败了。

在经历了一系列丑闻后（最严重的是伦敦银行间同业拆借利率(Libor)操纵丑闻），巴克莱员工敢于说：“不管你的级别多么高，如果你要求我做的事情是错的，我就不会照做。”这种正义的违抗命令很少有利于事业的晋升，但它有助于确保公司的健康，甚至生存。

多数员工很少会遇到老板发出这类让人为难的命令。但很多人会遭遇日常的管理愚蠢——僵硬得毫无必要的指令，对公司及其客户和声誉都有损害。

最近联合大陆(United Continental)机组人员接到命令，要求让4名乘客离开一架即将从芝加哥起飞的飞机，这就是一个很好的例子。航空公司未能找到自愿下机的乘客为执行另一个航班的员工让座，于是随机挑选了4名乘客下机。在全世界都看到的视频中，他们叫来了机场保安，把最不听话的一位越南裔美籍医生强行拖离飞机并致其受伤。

在乘客登机后说服乘客下机，要比在他们办理登记手续或者在登机口等待时更难。但与美联航向乘客提出的800美元下机补偿相比，航空公司应该有更多的办法。他们本可以告诉乘客他们的下次航班将升级为商务舱，或者除了搭乘第二天的航班，他们还可以获得一张免费机票。如果仍然没有自愿下机的乘客，他们可以提供到巴黎或曼谷的免费返程机票（反正他们可以限制志愿者在本来就肯定有空座的旅行淡季才能使用这种机票）。

如果价格合适，就会有足够多的乘客，甚至那些已经登机的乘客（或者就像美联航首席执行官奥斯卡?穆尼奥斯(Oscar Munoz)所说的那样，“已登机、放好行李和就座的乘客”）愿意放弃座位。

穆尼奥斯发布了一系列反响糟糕的声明，他现在表示，他认识到，他的空乘人员需要更多的自由去采取理智行动。他表示：“我们确实给予我们的一线员工一定权限，但我们需要扩大并调整这些政策，为常理稍微多留一些空间。”

要在该公司营造这种文化，需要坚持不懈的努力和很长时间。员工需要的不仅是授权。他们需要知道自己有权利说不，就像南非前财长戈登和巴克莱的一些员工所做的那样。盲目服从或许会取悦上司。但要求这么做的人不配担任管理职位。

【篇三】如何不断退路的辞去工作

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】译文

找工作这件事本身就是一份工作。你必须搜索合适的工作，更新自己的简历，写一些求职信，然后去面试--而这一切都没有保证。所以当你收到梦寐以求的工作机会时，接受这份工作似乎理所当然。但当你发现这一工作机会并不适合你时，你又该如何拒绝呢？

面试过程进入到最后几轮很可能说明你至少是有点喜欢这家你即将拒绝的公司的；甚至你可能想以后在这家公司工作。所以，拒绝的时候一定要语气亲切。

圣托内建议在拒绝工作机会后，手写一封便签，再次表达自己的感激之情，然后注明希望能保持联系。"这样你就扩大了自己的网络，"她解释道。"你没有接受他们的工作邀请并不意味着你们之间不能建立友情。"

"事实上，找工作的过程之一就是拒绝工作机会，"索菲贷款再融资公司的职业管理负责人马克·加舍说道。他说人们主要犯的两个错误就是：只给对方发送一条简短的、难以解读的语音留言，不留任何对话余地；或是写一封给人看上去不礼貌且可以转发的邮件。（你可不想你那简洁/尴尬的拒绝变成红极办公室的网红吧。）

由于害怕对峙，人们通常会采取最温和的方式。然而，的方式就是联系面试中和你联系最多的那个人，询问他们是否有时间探讨你的职位问题。这个人并不一定总是人事，加舍说道。他建议：打电话给任何在线工作人员，诚实的说清情况，但也不要太过诚实。比如，你拒绝的原因是面试你的经理惹恼了你，你情愿不向他报到，那你还是把这些话憋在心里。

"如果你觉得有些事情很负面，那也不要说。因为说了也没有意义，"他说道。

本文来源：http://www.scabjd.com/yingyuziyuan/136841/