Why firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plans is poorly understood. However, theory and limited research suggest that the process through which such plans emerge may play a part. In particular, top management decision-sharing—consensus-oriented, team-based decision-making—may increase the likelihood that firms will adhere to their plans, because those involved in the decision-making may be more committed to the chosen course of action, thereby increasing the likelihood that organizations will subsequently adhere to their plans.
However, the relationship between top management decision sharing and adherence to plans may be affected by a strategic mission (its fundamental approach to increasing sales revenue and market share, and generating cash flow and short-term profits). At one end of the strategic mission continuum, "build" strategies are pursued when a firm desires to increase its market share and is to sacrifice short-term profits to do so. At the other end, "harvest" strategies are used when a firm is to sacrifice market share for short-term profitability and maximization. Research and theory suggest that top management decision-sharing may have a more positive relationship with adherence to plans among firms with harvest strategies than among firms with build strategies. In a study of strategic practices in several large firms, managers in harvest strategy scenarios were more able to adhere to their business plans. As one of the managers in the study explained it, this is partly because "typically all a manager has to do [when implementing a harvest strategy] is that which was done last year." Additionally, managers under harvest strategies may have fewer strategic options than do those under build strategies; it may therefore be easier to reach agreement on a particular course of action through decision-sharing, which will in turn tend to promote adherence to plans. Conversely, in a "build" strategy scenario, individual leadership, rather than decision-sharing, may promote adherence to plans. Build strategies—which typically require leaders with strong personal visions for a future, rather than the negotiated compromise of the team-based decision—may be most closely adhered to when implemented in the context of a clear strategic vision of an individual leader, rather than through the practice of decision-sharing.
Which of the following best describes the function of the first sentence (see highlighted text) of the second paragraph of the passage?
To answer a question posed in the first sentence of the passage about why firms adopt particular strategic missions
To refute an argument made in the first paragraph about how top management decision-making affects whether firms will adhere to their strategic plans
To provide evidence supporting a theory introduced in the first paragraph about what makes firms adhere to or deviate from their strategic plans
To qualify an assertion made in the preceding sentence about how top management decision—making affects the likelihood that firms will adhere to their strategic plans
To explain a distinction relied on in the second paragraph regarding two different kinds of strategic missions
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 D。
因为第一句只是提出问题:企业为什么坚持或背离其战略计划尚未完全得到理解,没有提出任何看法。因此,前一句话必须是在讨论如何解释这个问题,即,高层管理决策如何影响企业是否坚持其战略计划。因此,最佳答案是D,即限定高管决策分享如何影响公司坚持其计划的可能性。
however不一定是反对前面内容
这里只是转折,意思是然而也要注意。。。。的问题
所以就是qualify 限定上句中关于高层管理决策如何影响公司坚持其战略计划的可能性的assertion (论断)
限定:让一个观点更详尽
qualify:
to add to something that has already been said, in order to limit its effect or meaning
eg:Could I just qualify that last statement?
--From Longman
qualify an assertion 限定这个断言
而不是反驳
错选了E, E错在这句话本身并没有explain
qualify 限定→ qualify an assertion 限定范围
qualify 限定
qualify an assertion 限定这个断言
而不是反驳
句子作用题: However, the relationship between top management decision sharing and adherence to plans may be affected by a strategic mission。- 主旨句
其实是对P1的conclusion: top management decision-making process帮助公司adhere to goals, 进一步的限定说明,即top management decision-making process帮助 harvest strategy的公司更好得stick to goals
choice d, qualify the assertion in the first paragraph. correct
qualify 限定
qualify an assertion 限定这个断言
qualify出现在阅读里一般都理解为限制
qualify:限定/使具有资格...
E不是第二段首句的作用,可以说是第二段后面的作用了
第一段,首先提出引子:公司偏离计划或是坚持计划的成因向来成谜。
引出观点:研究表明,指定计划的过程本身可以在一定程度上解释偏离/坚持的成因。 top management decision-sharing可以增加公司坚持计划的可能性。
第二段首句转折,limit 第一段的观点:“top management decision-sharing可以增加公司坚持计划的可能性”未必是正确的,还要看策略使命(strategic mission)。
以下分述两种strategic mission:1. build,以market share为导向;2. harvest,以profit为导向。
点明decision-sharing前提下,harvest更能使公司adhere to plan,原因2条,略,第1条中invoke了manager的话,有题。
反过来解释build更适合individual leadership,原因略。
注意!!!!提出一个结论==》however有一些factor会影响这个结论 !!!!
这个不是反驳啊!!!!!一定要体会反驳和限定的区别
qualify 这里有限定的意思!!!
qualify an assertion 限定这个断言
各位亲。。qualify是限制的意思。。。不是让他更加有质量的意思啊!!!
Qualify一个观点的含义是让这个观点更加详尽,以便可以抵御这类challenge
qualify是限制的意思亲
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
qualify出现在阅读里一般都理解为限制
HOWEVER的未必是否定还可能是怀疑
C选项有疑惑 求解
Qualify一个观点的含义是让这个观点更加详尽,以便可以抵御这类challenge
懂了
我错选了e,best function应该最好和前文联系吧
qualify是限制的意思啊~~~
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
qualify--使 …… 更有资格---更合理 P1解释了影响adhere的一个原因
第二段解释另一个原因