- UID
- 988637
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2014-3-12
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
是这题吗？
Halo effect(附背景资料+原文)
V1 jill88630 （680 v35）
有一篇讲halo effect，（当时怎么也没明白啥意思，满脑子都是beyonce那首歌，I can see your halo….）文中给的解释是：Perceive a positive quality of one thing by perceive a positive quality of related thing… 第一段举了个例子，没出题好像。第二段说很多公司用formula来assess企业表现而得出很多企业都是良好运营的，但作者观点是不应该用formula, 因为performance不是这样能体现的，而是应该跟competitor比较。还有第三段，不太记得了…不好意思。
V2
stellar1017（V30）
讲公司的一种效应，叫halo effect，说人们倾向于用这样一种方式去评价公司，如果利润高，情况好，股票又涨，人们就会觉得这个公司什么都好，文化很vibrate，员工得到了很好的激励之类的，而相同的公司如果表现的没那么好了，人们就会觉得这个公司什么都不行了。 第二段讲的是商业书籍中最畅销的就是那种告诉人们只要遵从于一定的步骤就可以使公司成功的书，可是这些书里的案例的来源并不足以可信，他们只是让那些成功的公司看上去似乎遵循了相同的步骤罢了。。。后面好像是讲这个现象和halo effect的关系，不记得了。。。 第三段就开始说一个企业的情况不仅仅取决于他本身还取决于相对的大环境，举了个美国破产的汽车企业，说和80年代他们出产的汽车比起来商品好了很多，但由于亚洲汽车制造商的竞争而破产了，最后说遵从那个所谓的步骤就能成功是不现实的，企业必须要承担风险才有可能成功
V3
clarawang
（710 V38）
第一段人们用halo effect，去评价一个公司的策略好不好。这个方法不一定对。如果利润高，情况好，股票涨这个公司肯定就很好，员工也好，环境也好什么都好。这个公司以后利润低了，股票跌了，人们就会觉得这个公司什么都不行了。其实可能这个公司还是一样的
第二段一本最畅销的商业方面的书说只要遵循一定的步骤，企业就可以成功，后面就说这个书不对。（后面的忘记了但是后面的有考题，请牛牛补充）
第三段 一个企业的成功还要看他的竞争者。举例子说一个美国的汽车后来比以前的质量什么都好，但是最后还是破产了，因为亚洲的竞争对手更好。所以企业要想成功要承担风险（这句话不太懂？）
V4
damienby
第一段稍微介绍了这个HALO EFFECT，就是好的更好，不好的更不好，
第二段说了一些书。但是其实这些书是recommend的strategy其实是因为公司好才好的，也就是说第二段在否认。
第三段开段就提出了要建立在Consumption上（好像是），反正转折很强烈。
V5by fanyue111（690
V31）
这篇有一道题目比较纠结 是the passage indicated that 如果一个公司 proif增加 等等那么suggeste 哪个是正确的 我选的是 maybe competitor outperformence it company 不知道对不对，还有一个选项是这个公司用了一个不错的strategy 这两个纠结了半天。 大家根据文章自己理解吧，我不想误导你们。
V6by
RBY（690
V35）
1、 把第二段里面讲到关于那本书的study highlight。说文章suggest 了什么。
我选了暗示了这些studies是incorrect 当他们认为there was strategy 可以使企业成功只要企业follow it. 这个是A选项。
2、 还有一题是关于文章最后一段的。说文章暗示有些公司发展的很好，会出现什么情况。
选项有，这些公司没有采用特定的strategy。这些公司有好的什么文化啊，motive 的员工啊，什么的。 我选了E 选项。有可能有公司比这个公司发展的更好。因为最后一段讲了有个公司虽然发展得很好，但是他的市场占有率什么的还是下降了因为有一些其他原因，包括有亚洲公司的竞争。
V7by
vickyworld (740)
里面我记得有一题是说如果一个公司他的业绩非常好，表明了什么。。我选的是不是按着一沉不变的规律来做的，之前还看到过JJ答案说是有其他公司比他做的好，大家自己判断下哈~
V8by
lhuang5
[在V2同学的基础上进行考题补充]
是讲公司的一种效应，叫halo effect，说人们倾向于用这样一种方式去评价公司，如果利润高，情况好，股票又涨（这里有题，问可以推断出什么？）人们就会觉得这个公司什么都好，文化很vibrate，员工得到了很好的激励之类的，而相同的公司如果表现的没那么好了，人们就会觉得这个公司什么都不行了。 第二段讲的是商业书籍中最畅销的就是那种告诉人们只要遵从于一定的步骤就可以使公司成功的书(这里问那种畅销书有什么作用？我选的是会影响leader作出决定），可是这些书里的案例的来源并不足以可信，他们只是让那些成功的公司看上去似乎遵循了相同的步骤罢了。。。后面好像是讲这个现象和halo effect的关系，不记得了。。。 第三段就开始说一个企业的情况不仅仅取决于他本身还取决于相对的大环境，这里还提及了竞争对手在企业成功中起了很重要的作用，但一般的公司却缺乏关注。（这里有题哦！好像是选那个有competitve 之类的词的选项）对手举了个美国破产的汽车企业，说和80年代他们出产的汽车比起来商品好了很多，但由于亚洲汽车制造商的竞争而破产了，最后说遵从那个所谓的步骤就能成功是不现实的，企业必须要承担风险才有可能成功(这里似乎也有题）
V9by
ireneawake (700+)
有道大家对答案有争议的题是问“第三段提到的汽车产业公司例子意味着下列什么？”我选了它了likely not to a fixed strategy的一项，因为另外那项是“other competitors significantly outperforms the company”,significantly这个意思原文肯定是没有的。
V10by onething123
大意是说现在对公司的状况分析普遍反映了halo effect。具体就是一旦公司有好的表现，写书的人就会假设肯定是因为好的战略之类的往回倒推做研究。后来又说这在absolute performance 什么中又体现。一个公司的好战略可能有发展，但其他公司发展的更好的话这个公司的表现就会受限制。举例了美国的汽车公司虽然稳步前进但因日本公司的崛起其股价大幅下降。最后作者又说在完全竞争的市场环境中公司的战略和表现什么之类的是相互关联的，类似均衡等意思。最后一句说：所以，商人还是要take risk而不是弄战略。我觉得这句话直接在最后把文章的方向变了。还出了题。大家注意。absolute performance拿东西是在最后一段出现的！
V11by arthur7997
最后一题文如果一个公司效益好，士气高说明什么，两个选项很难选：1个是说他们很可能没有遵循top selling business book 中的策略，定位在文章第二段；另一个说他们有可能喜欢承担风险，大约这个意思，定位在文末最后一句。
还有一个题问公司头头怎样做容易导致“delution of xxx”，定位在三段开头，两个选项比较难取舍，一个是他们照着畅销书中的做法作，另一个是说什么记不清了，sorry
V12by emma_huang(710 V34)
那道争议题（是the passage indicated that 如果一个公司 质量提升导致proif增加那么suggeste 哪个是正确的）我选的是maybe competitor outperformence it company ，因为第二、三段主要都是在阐述通过和竞争对手相对的关系判断问题。
V13by
sunning（740）
重点看 beaware the halo effect 和delusion of absolute performance 这两部分，记得有一个题，说下列实行哪个政策的公司最不容易成功，记得有个选项是按照书中原理采取一**的公司，答案记不清了~
V14by zhaoqianjun(710)
1）作者第二段提到畅销书的作用
答案：指出一个有hollo effect 的方法，这个我很确定，其他选项挺好排除的。
2）作者对一个公司的效率高，利润高持什么态度
答案：并不能说明该公司有有效的管理策略（确定）
3）作者文中提到“absolute performance”的目的或者是意思（忘记了）
答案:因为那一段都是在讲competitor，所以就选那个和竞争对手有关的选项（确定）
背景资料1 感谢maggieren900提供
Halo Effect
晕轮效应，又称“光环效应”，指人们对他人的认知判断首先是根据个人的好恶得出的,然后再从这个判断推论出认知对象的其他品质的现象。如果认知对象被标明是"好"的,他就会被"好"的光圈笼罩着,并被赋予一切好的品质;如果认知对象被标明是"坏"的,他就会被"坏"的光圈笼罩着,他所有的品质都会被认为是坏的。
The most pervasive delusion is the Halo Effect. When a company's sales and profits are up, people often conclude that it has a brilliant strategy, a visionary leader, capable employees, and a superb corporate culture. When performance falters, they conclude that the strategy was wrong, the leader became arrogant, the people were complacent, and the culture was stagnant. In fact, little may have changed -- company performance creates a Halo that shapes the way we perceive strategy, leadership, people, culture, and more.
原文链接 感谢ohohh 提供
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_Math/thread-416546-1-1.html
感谢考友ireneawake的确认意见：基本可以肯定这就是GMAC用来压缩改写的原始材料。但是考试的原文只讲了'Delusion of absolute performance',没有讲"Delusion of lasting success"所以建议大家重点阅读楼主材料里的"Beaware the Halo Effect"&"the Delusion of Absolute Performance"这两部分!
感谢applehao手工转输了原文，辛苦！
Beware of the halo effect
Many studies of company performance are undermined by a problem known as the halo effect. First identified by US psychologist Edward Thorndike in 1920, it describes the tendency to make specific inferences on the basis of a general impression.
How does the halo effect manifest itself in the business world? Imagine a company that is doing well, with rising sales, high profits, and a sharply increasing stock price. The tendency is to infer that the company has a sound strategy, a visionary leader, motivated employee, an excellent customer orientation, a vibrant culture, and so on. But when that same company suffers a decline—if sales fall and profits shrink—many people are quick to conclude that the company’s strategy went wrong, its people became complacent, it neglected its customers, its culture became stodgy, and more. In fact, these things may not have changed much, if at all. Rather, company performance, good or bad, creates an overall impression—a halo—that shapes how we perceive its strategy, leaders, employees, culture, and other elements.
As an example, when Cisco Systems was growing rapidly, in the late 1990s, it was widely praised by journalists and researchers for its brilliant strategy, masterful management of acquisitions, and superb customer focus. When the tech bubble burst, many of the same observers were quick to make the opposite attributions: Cisco, the journalists and researchers claimed, now had a flawed strategy, haphazard组织混乱的 acquisition management, and poor customer relations. On closer examination, Cisco really had not changed much—a decline in its performance led people to see the company differently. Indeed, Cisco staged a remarkable turnaround and today is still one of the leading tech companies. The same thing happened at ABB, the Swiss-Swedish engineering giant. In the 1990s, when its performance was strong, ABB was lauded for its elegant matrix design, risk-taking culture, and charismatic chief executive, Percy Barnevik. Later, when the company’s performance fell, ABB was roundly criticized for having a dysfunctional organization, a chaotic混乱的 culture, and an arrogant CEO. But again, the company had not really changed much.
The fact is that many everyday concepts in business—including leadership, corporate culture, core competencies, and customer orientation—are ambiguous and difficult to define. We often infer perceptions of them from something else, which appears to be more concrete and tangible: namely, financial performance. As a result, many of the things that we commonly believe are contributions to the company performance are in fact attributions. In other words, outcomes can be mistaken for inputs.
Wise managers know to be wary of the halo effect. They look for independent evidence rather than merely accepting the idea that a successful company has a visionary leader and a superb customer orientation or that a struggling company must have a poor strategy and weak execution. They ask themselves, “If I didn’t know how the company was performing, what would I think about its culture, execution, or customer orientation?” They know that as long as their judgments are merely attributions reflecting a company’s performance, their logic will be circular.
The halo effect is especially damaging because it often compromises the quality of data used in research. Indeed, many studies of business performance—as well as some articles that have appeared in journals such as Harvard Business Review and the McKinsey Quarterly and in academic business journals—rely on data contaminated by the halo effect. These studies praise themselves for the vast amount of data they have accrued but overlook the fact that if the data aren’t valid, if really doesn’t matter how much was gathered or how sophisticated the analysis appear to be.
This reliance on questionable data, in turn, gives rise to a number of further errors in logic. Two delusions—of absolute performance and of lasting success—have particularly serious repercussions for business strategies.
The delusion of absolute performance
One of the most seductive claims in business best sellers is that a company can achieve success if it follows a specific set of steps. Some recent books are explicit on this point, claiming that a company hewing to a certain formula is virtually sure to become a great performer. On closer inspection these studies rely on sources of data (including retrospective interviews, articles from the business press, and business school case studies) that are routinely undermined by the halo effect. Whereas a given set of factors may appear to have led predictably to success, the reverse is more likely—it would be more accurate to say that successful companies tended to be described in the same way. The direction of causality is wrong.
Following a given formula can’t ensure high performance, and for a simple reason: in a competitive market economy, performance is fundamentally relative, not absolute. Success and failure depend not only on a company’s actions but also on those of its rivals. A company can improve its operations in many ways—better quality, lower cost, faster throughput time, superior asset management, and more—but if rivals improve at a faster rate, its performance still suffer.
Consider General Motors. In 2005 GM’s debt was reduced to junk bond status—hardly a vote of confidence from financial markets. Yet compared with the automobiles GM produced in the 1980s, its cars today boast better quality, additional features, superior comfort, and improved safety. Owing to myriad of factors including the increased prominence of Japanese and South Korean automakers, 这里貌似V9题目的答案。“第三段提到的汽车产业公司例子意味着下列什么？”— 选项有likely not to a fixed strategy和other competitors significantly outperforms the company”我认为应该是后者 GM’s share of the US market keeps slipping, from 35 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 1999 and 25 percent in 2005. Its declining performance must be understood in relative terms. Paradoxically, the rigors of competition from Asian automakers are precisely what have stimulated GM to improve. Is GM a better automaker than it was a generation ago? Yes, if we look at absolute measure. But that’s little comfort to its employees or shareholders.
The delusion of absolute performance is very important because it suggests that a company can achieve high performance by following a simple formula, regardless of the actions of competitors. If left unchecked, executives may avoid decisions that, although risky, could be essential for success. Once we see that performance is relative, however, it becomes obvious that a company can never achieve success simply by following certain steps, no matter how serious its intentions. High performance comes from doing things better that rivals can, which means that managers have to take risks.V11：问如果一个公司效益好，士气高说明什么，两个选项很难选：1个是说他们很可能没有遵循top selling business book 中的策略。另一个说他们有可能喜欢承担风险。显然high performance...这句话更直接地回答了问题：take risks。This uncomfortable truth recognizes that some elements of business performance are beyond our control, yet it is an essential concept that clear-thinking executives must grasp. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2014-9-26 23:58:07
收藏
收藏
楼主