2012年6月cet6閱讀 全文翻譯

1、正如每一個(gè)試圖減肥的人一樣，通常情況下，現(xiàn)實(shí)的目 標(biāo)設(shè)定能產(chǎn)生很好的效果；這樣的結(jié)果部分歸因于設(shè)定目標(biāo) 的人目標(biāo)設(shè)定對(duì)目標(biāo)的達(dá)成產(chǎn)生的巨大影響，從而在實(shí) 施過程中更有效地努力。然而，科學(xué)家們發(fā)現(xiàn)，這種理解太膚淺了。目標(biāo)設(shè)定真 正的影響是潛在的和有害的。報(bào)紙依靠解釋包括在金融中心和其余地區(qū)的工業(yè)和商業(yè) 中廣為流行的目標(biāo)設(shè)定、以及目標(biāo)設(shè)定引起經(jīng)營的起伏來獲 得發(fā)行，然而奇怪的是，極少的研究關(guān)注如下事實(shí)：恰恰是 目標(biāo)設(shè)定的長期鼓吹，可能就是引起當(dāng)前經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)、以及普 遍認(rèn)可的不道德行為的源泉?！爱?dāng)由真正的利益結(jié)果驅(qū)動(dòng)時(shí)，目標(biāo)常常得以廣泛提倡 和應(yīng)用。然而同樣的動(dòng)機(jī)，可能在推動(dòng)人們?cè)谛袨榉绞缴鲜?加影響

2、的同時(shí)，刺激人們產(chǎn)生不道德的行為”，沃頓商學(xué)院 助教茅瑞斯斯凱維特澤如是說?！笆聦?shí)證明，如果在沒有經(jīng)濟(jì)利益的前提下設(shè)定目標(biāo)， 往往會(huì)獲得心理上的收益”，斯凱維特澤說：“但有很多案 例表明，具有經(jīng)濟(jì)獎(jiǎng)金的目標(biāo)使它們變得更加有推動(dòng)力”。在 2004 年，斯凱維特澤和他的同事關(guān)注于一個(gè)重要的案 例能源貿(mào)易巨人安然公司的轟然奔潰，該公司的經(jīng)理們 運(yùn)用財(cái)政激勵(lì)手段，促使銷售員達(dá)成突出的收益目標(biāo)。斯凱維特澤表示：問題的核心在于，僅促成物質(zhì)上的交易往往不 是最合算的。其他的研究也同樣表明，讓員工承擔(dān)不切實(shí)際的目標(biāo)， 可能迫使他們?nèi)鲋e、欺騙或者剽竊。上世紀(jì) 90 年代早期， 有這樣的一個(gè)案例：當(dāng)西爾斯公司強(qiáng)加

3、給其汽車維修員工一 定的銷售指標(biāo)，該指標(biāo)促使員工漫天要價(jià)以及在公司業(yè)務(wù)范 圍內(nèi)開展不必要的維修業(yè)務(wù)。斯凱維特澤承認(rèn)，他的研究結(jié)果與大量文獻(xiàn)的觀點(diǎn)是背 道而馳的，因?yàn)榇罅课墨I(xiàn)認(rèn)為目標(biāo)設(shè)定有諸多益處。實(shí)踐中 的擁護(hù)者們已對(duì)斯凱維特澤團(tuán)隊(duì)采用的證據(jù)提出了異議，那 些支持他結(jié)論認(rèn)為目標(biāo)設(shè)定被過分夸大的證據(jù)，只 不過被那些實(shí)踐中的擁護(hù)者們當(dāng)做新聞報(bào)道而已。在一篇駁斥斯凱維特澤觀點(diǎn)的論文中，埃德溫洛克寫 到：“目標(biāo)設(shè)定并沒有消失。如果沒有使命感的目標(biāo)支撐， 個(gè)人不可能茁壯成長；相對(duì)于個(gè)人而言，組織則更需要聚焦 于他們追求的最終結(jié)果，否則不可能興旺發(fā)達(dá)。”斯凱維特澤辯稱，發(fā)現(xiàn)越來越多有因果關(guān)系的證據(jù)將目 標(biāo)

4、設(shè)定和損害行為關(guān)聯(lián)起來。這些證據(jù)應(yīng)該加以研究，以便 幫助公眾解決那些應(yīng)予警告和長期調(diào)查的問題。他說道，“即 使是一些較少的負(fù)面影響，他們的影響是如此之大以至遠(yuǎn)超 過許多正面影響的總和?！彼f道，“目標(biāo)設(shè)定的確能夠有助于互相協(xié)調(diào)和激勵(lì)。 我的想法是一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的組織文化，還要兼有謹(jǐn)慎的監(jiān)督， 對(duì)組織具有建設(shè)性意義且沒有明顯損害，這才能確保在目標(biāo) 運(yùn)用的效果?！盇s anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. Thats partially

5、 because it appears people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and exert more effort, to achieve those goals.Whats far less understood by scien tists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting.Newspapers relay daily accounts of goal-setting run amok in industri

6、es and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street, yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-trumpeted practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis, and unethical behavior in general.“Goals are widely used and promoted as having rea

7、lly beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to exert more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in unethical behaviors,” says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor of operations and information management at Penns Whart

8、on School. His paper, titled “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over- Prescribing Goal Setting,” appears in the February issue of the Academy of Management Perspectives .“It turns out theres no economic benefit to just having a goal you just get a psychic benefit and tha ts quite motiv

9、ating in itself,” Schweitzer says. “But in many cases, goals have economic rewards that make them more salient or powerful.”A prime example Schweitzer and his colleagues cite is the 2004 collapse of energy-trading titan Enron, where managers used financial incentives to motivate salesmen to meet spe

10、cific revenue goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is the actual trades were not profitable.Other studies have shown that saddling employees with unrealistic goals can compel them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case, Schweitzer says, in the early 1990s when Sears imposed a sales quota on its a

11、uto repair staff. It prompted employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.“People become significantly more likely to cheat with goals than without them,” he says.Goal-setting is at the heart of the debate over the effectiveness of the controversial No

12、 Child Left Behind Act. Because underperforming schools receive less federal money than those with high math and reading test results, “predictably,” Schweitzer says, there have been examples of teachers and administrators manipulating scores.Schweitzer concedes his research runs counter to a very l

13、arge body of literature that extols the many benefits of goal-setting. Proponents of the practice have taken issue with his teams use of anecdotal evidence like news accounts to support his conclusion that goal setting is widely over-prescribed.In a rebuttal paper, Edwin A. Locke, from the Universit

14、y of Maryland, College Park, and Gary P. Latham, from the University of Toronto, write: “Goal setting is not going away. Organizations cannot thrive without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can thrive without goals to provide a sens e of purpose.”But Schweitzer

15、contends the “mounting causal evidence” linking goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help spotlight issues that merit caution and further investigation. “Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects,” he says.The debate is likely to rage on in future papers, and the practice of setting goals no doubt will continue. For now, though, the lesson seems to be to put more thought into setting goals.“They really do help to coor