Many managers are influenced by dangerous myths about pay that lead to counterproductive decisions about how their companies compensate employees. One such myth is that labor rates, the rate per hour paid to workers, are identical with labor costs, the money spent on labor in relation to the productivity of the labor force. This myth leads to the assumption that a company can simply lower its labor costs by cutting wages. But labor costs and labor rates are not in fact the same: one company could pay its workers considerably more than another and yet have lower labor costs if that company's productivity were higher due to the talent of its workforce, the efficiency of its work processes, or other factors. The confusion of costs with rates persists partly because labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact on their company's budgets. Because labor rates are highly visible, managers can easily compare their company's rates with those of competitors. Furthermore, labor rates often appear to be a company's most malleable financial variable: cutting wages appears an easier way to control costs than such options as reconfiguring work processes or altering product design.
The myth that labor rates and labor costs are equivalent is supported by business journalists, who frequently confound the two. For example, prominent business journals often remark on the "high" cost of German labor, citing as evidence the average amount paid to German workers. The myth is also perpetuated by the compensation consulting industry, which has its own incentive to keep such myths alive. First, although some of these consulting firms have recently broadened their practices beyond the area of compensation, their mainstay continues to be advising companies on changing their compensation practices. Suggesting that a company's performance can be improved in some other way than by altering its pay system may be empirically correct but contrary to the consultants' interests. Furthermore, changes to the compensation system may appear to be simpler to implement than changes to other aspects of an organization, so managers are more likely to find such advice from consultants palatable. Finally, to the extent that changes in compensation create new problems, the consultants will continue to have work solving the problems that result from their advice.
The passage suggests that the "myth" mentioned in the highlighted text persists partly because
managers find it easier to compare their companies' labor rates with those of competitors than to compare labor costs
managers tend to assume that labor rates affect their companies' budgets less than they actually do
managers tend to believe that labor rates can have an impact on the efficiency of their companies' work processes
the average amount paid to workers differs significantly from one country to another
many companies fail to rely on compensation consultants when making decisions about labor rates
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 A。
答案解释:文中表明,很多经理会受到危险的「工资神话」的影响,这些神话导致他们在公司的员工薪资问题上做出有害的决定。这样的神话之一就是「劳动力费率」和「劳动力成本」是相同的——但事实并非如此,这种混淆使经理们倚赖这种神话。文中表明,这种神话的持续主要有两个原因:一是经理们可以很容易地比较自己公司的劳动力费率和竞争对手的费率,而不是劳动力成本;二是劳动力费率通常是企业中最容易改变的财务变量。因此,正确答案是 A,因为经理们发现比较他们的公司的劳动力费率和其他公司的费率要比比较劳动力成本容易得多。
这题除A以外的选项很好排除
A选项带来的疑惑:原文只提及rates调整是方便的(未提及与costs比较),A如何就是正确?以及原文逻辑rates调整方便如何导致myth就perpetuate?
我的逻辑链:文中说manager的目的是削减预算,预算=总体成本,labor costs=money spent in relation to ...labor force 不等于单一人工成本,至少可以等于某种程度上的总体成本。manager要削减预算就要做出调整,由原文可知rates调整起来更方便,并且rates并不=costs(作者观点,事实),所以manager想要更方便地做出成绩就需要将rates与costs等同(捏造虚假信息),让别人以为他在调整总体成本,而事实上他只调整了rates。
结论:因此将二者等同是为了获取投机取巧的正当性。也由于该方法屡试不爽(我的假设),所以rates=costs的myth一直存在。
这个逻辑链可以解释为什么原文只说调整rates是convenient(未提及与costs比较)的情况下,A中rates的调整比costs调整更简单
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论