AI128~请斧正!感激不尽啊~!!!

Maggie_Ru

题目大概是:

In general, a company’s most valuable employees are those who are concerned more with efficiency than with quality.

What’s your opinion about the statement mentioned above, according to your personal experiences, observation or readings.

我的观点主要是:根据员工不同的工作内容,性质,以及工作重点,考核员工的价值应该有不同的标准,简单的用员工对效率或是质量的关注程度来判断其是不是最有价值员工是武断的,欠考虑的.而认为更注重效率的员工就是最有价值的员工当然就更不对了.

我在举例子的时候~把质量这个概念缩小为产品质量~这样做会不会偏题~会不会是对题目的理解不当?我想题目是不是更多的是想讨论工作质量~~但是后来我想~工作质量具体下来~又可以分为服务质量,生产出的产品质量~~根据不同的工作种类划分~~所以~为了让问题讨论起来容易一些~我选择产品质量作为突破口~~不知道这样做是不是合适啊?~

再次感谢所有给我宝贵意见和建议的人~~~~谢谢~!

我的作文如下:

When the question of who a company's most valuable employees are is rising, we should first know that employees can be divided into several classes, for each of which there are different criteria to access their performance, which can be set up based on their jobs’ contents, characters, as well as concerns; and that, maybe more importantly, each of them make their own contributions individually, or cooperatively, or in any other ways. Therefore, the broad opinion stated above is obviously unreasonable and lack of serious considerations.

Take the two different kinds of employees of KFC as an example. The first kind of employees are those who sell products directly to consumers, and for them efficiency must be the most important sound ingredient working here since KFC has been long referred to as a fast-food company. It provides the public with speedy, considerable, and standard services, by commanding its employees who specifically take charge of selling to offer the food the more quickly the better. Because at this moment, efficiency not only yields more benefits for the company in the same limited time, but it also help customers save time when they are busily engaged in something really important. If only to this point, we can say that for such kind of employees, KFC's managers in high levels can appraise them by evaluating how efficient they are, and they themselves should make efficiency their major priority.

But what if for the second kind of employees, those who see to the quality of food? KFC is undoubtedly a fast-food company, but it is also a food company. So, if we view the definition of quality as the quality of food, that is whether the food is delicious or healthy, also plays a significant role. Can you expect people to risk their appetite and health in becoming loyal customers of certain food company? In other words, without high quality, however fast the food can be provided, the customers would have no wish to buy them again. So far as I know, in China, even in today's marketing strategies, KFC still keeps on updating the categories of its food and promoting much healthier food in order to attract more and more Chinese customers. All of these strategies show KFC's strong will to gain most benefits from elevating the quality of its food. Given that high quality of food ensures the long-term continuing success of KFC, it’s unfair to simply say that employees who are concerned more with quality are less valuable than those who are concerned more with efficiency.

In one word, there is no one "right" or "general" way to judge who is the most valuable employee of a company, especially when teamwork has been playing a more and more critical role in today's economy. For employees, the key point is to make out the exact place where you are in this company, and make contributritions to it full heartedly; rather than to argue who is the most valuable employees in vain.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-12 23:48:27编辑过]

Maggie_Ru

hoho~~~偶废了九牛二胡之力~终于找到了题号~~~yeah~~~~

Maggie_Ru

55555555555555可是~~~都没人搭理~~~大家就看在偶这么用心的份儿上~~~开开金口哦~~~~

TheYeti

re: 55555555555555可是~~~都没人搭理~~~大家就看在偶这么用心的份儿上 OK, OK, I will quickly go through part of it for you.

I have never written a GMAT exam, so I leave the comment on content and presentation to others. I can only help in picking out the most obvious mistakes. Anything more advance would be best left to the experts.

(When the question of who a company's most valuable employees is rising arises, we should first know that employees can be divided into several classes, for each of which there are different criteria to access their performance, which can be set up based on their jobs’ contents, characters, as well as concerns; and that, maybe more importantly, each of them make their own contributions individually, or cooperatively, or in any other ways. ) (Don’t you find that sentence a bit too long? I am not even sure if it is a run-on sentence or not. Let me try breaking it up for you.) (If  “we should first know…”, then it should be “Before the question…arises.”

When the question of who is a company’s most valuable employee arises, we should remember that employees could be divided into several categories. (“Classes” sounds like high class, and low class. I would avoid that. I could be wrong. As recent as yesterday, someone at the Han Ying forum accused me—perhaps rightfully-- of being overly sensitive to connotation of words.)  There are different criteria in accessing the performance of each group: job content, character, concerns for (????), and most importantly, contributions to the company as an individual or otherwise.

Therefore, the broad opinion stated above(above=paragraph above. Change that to something else.  E.g. Therefore, the given premise) is obviously unreasonable and lack of serious considerations.

Take the two different kinds of employees of KFC as an example. The first kind of employees are those who sell products directly to consumers, and for them efficiency must be the most important sound ingredient for working there since KFC has been long referred to as a fast-food company. It provides the public with speedy, considerable(?)(  considerable services or considerate services, and standard services?  Which one do you have in mind?)  by commanding its employees who specifically take charge of selling selling and cooking  staff to take and fill orders  to offer the food the more quickly the better. Because at this moment, efficiency not only yields more benefits for the company in the same limited time, but it also help customers save time when they are busily engaged in something else that are really important. If only to this point, we can say that for such kind of employees, high-level KFC's managers in high levels can appraise them by evaluating how efficient they are, and they themselves should make efficiency their major(redundant intensifier) priority.

(More later.)

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-10-15 12:37:37编辑过]

TheYeti

(I decided to quickly finish the rest of the essay.)

But (what if for)=??? what about the second kind of employees, those who see to/ oversee the quality of the(specific reference: “the” food they are selling) food? KFC is undoubtedly a fast-food company, but it is also a food company. So, if we view the definition of quality as the quality of food, that is whether the food is delicious or healthy, also plays a significant role. Can you expect people to risk their appetite and health in becoming loyal customers of a certain food company? In other words, without high quality, however fast the food can be provided, the customers would have no wish to buy them again. So far as I know, in China, even in with today's marketing strategies, KFC still keeps on updating the categories(=?) of its food and promoting much healthier food in order to attract more and more Chinese customers. All of these strategies show KFC's strong will to gain most maximum benefits from elevating the quality of its food. Given that high quality of food ensures the long-term continuing success of KFC, it’s unfair to simply say that employees who are concerned more with quality are less valuable than those who are concerned more with efficiency.

In one word, there is no one "right" or "general" way to judge who is the most valuable employee of a company, especially when teamwork has been playing a more and more critical role in today's economy. For employees, the key point is to make out find/define your exact place in a company the exact place where you are in this company, and make contributions to it full heartedly; rather than to argue in vain who is the most valuable employees in vain. ( Dangling modifier: “in vain” modifies “argue.”)

---

In retrospect, I found the premise  "Who are concerned more with efficiency than with quality" ambiguous. Their own efficiency and quality of their work, or the efficient running of the company and the quality of their product?

  

judydongxueni

我说下思路吧呵呵。你的分析是可以的呀。其实毕竟是考场作文老师的批改时间也比较有限不会求全责备，你的思路很好，但是感觉你的思维过程会比较长哦，考试的时候可能会写不完。可以尝试first, second, admittedly这种方法写起来比较有套路也有层次。

Maggie_Ru

恩~~~谢谢大家~~~~

谢谢yeti这么花心思帮我改~~谢谢~~

谢谢斑竹jj的建议~~的确~~~整篇文章超时了~~思路是在写的时候逐渐形成的~~~我想~~因为是第一次写~~~时间就没有限制~~~~我以前很惧怕作文的~~~我想刚开始先不限时间随便写~~写的尽量忠实自己的原意~~~然后逐渐提高~~我是12月26考试~~~不知道这样会不会来不及啊~~~~

judydongxueni

表担心肯定来的及