查看: 571|回复: 11

[阅读小分队] 【Native Speaker 每日训练计划】No.2847【经管】

发表于 2020-7-21 23:06:31 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
内容:Morgan Hu   编辑:Yong Shu
Wechat ID: NativeStudy  / Weibo:
Part I: Speaker
This Weekend's (Fiscal) Cliffhanger
Stacey Vanek Smith , July 2020
[Rephrase 1, 9:31]
Part II:Speed
Let’s ditch self-improvement and focus on effective cooperation
July 092020 by Ab Banerjee
[Time 2]
Trumpeted as the step-by-step guide to making you a ‘kickass boss’ and management luminary, 'Radical Candor’ is a new school of management thinking that encourages leaders to learn to challenge more directly while also communicating empathy. The brainchild of executive coach and ex-Google operations lead, Kim Scott, it’s difficult to argue with the sentiment. The problems, though, are its misplaced priorities. Radical Candor places individual self-improvement at the cornerstone of its strategy. Though important, it risks managers losing sight of their broader corporate objective.
Another theory gaining ground on the US West Coast is the ‘ fixed & growth mindset’ theory, which faces the same issue. Stanford academic, Carol Dweck argues people have one of two mindsets. With a ‘fixed mindset’, individuals perceive their basic abilities and talents to be fixed traits. Allocated with this rigid set of abilities from birth, they focus their efforts on looking smart all the time and never appearing dumb.
With a ‘growth mindset’ the opposite is the case. Individuals believe that that their talents and abilities can be developed and enhanced through hard work and learning. Dweck argues we should all aspire to the ‘growth mindset’ and sets out a programme to adapt our thinking accordingly.
In developing their theories both Scott and Dweck are too focussed on the individual. Businesses exist to provide a product or service to their clients or customers. To deliver this effectively, performance must be optimised in the three key areas, dubbed the ‘holy trinity’: productivity growth, employee engagement, and client satisfaction. Though important, self-improvement isn’t the central factor driving each of these. Rather, effective cooperation is.
The ‘Cooperation Mindset’
In the natural environment, evolutionary success is determined by adaptive ability, underpinned by cohesive organisational function at either an individual or collective level. Much the same as in nature, improving cooperation so that individuals and teams within an organisation can adapt in an agile, real-time way to a fast-changing external environment is the critical determinant behind commercial success. The more effective you are at fulfilling customer needs the more likely you are to succeed.
To deliver effective cooperation requires realtime feedback and intelligence to inform understanding both of your colleagues’ needs internally and your customers’ needs externally. Though distinct, colleagues and customers must be treated as one. Irrespective of who the end recipient may be, the output should be considered as part of the broader organisational function instead of in isolation for an individual’s own self-improvement. With this ‘cooperation mindset’ in place, having the ability to gauge your performance, either individually or as part of a team, is critical. Without that feedback you’re stumbling alone in the dark, unable to determine what actions you’re doing well or badly.
[449 words]

[Time 3]
Actionable Objective Feedback
While driving feedback is at the heart of ‘Radical Candor’, the nature of the feedback delivered is also important and illustrates a further shortcoming to the approach. Empathetic or not, direct feedback is redundant and can even be harmful if it’s subjective and unactionable.
In their recent book ‘ Nine Lies About Work’: A Freethinking Leader’s Guide to the Real World, leadership coaches, Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall, argue that subjective feedback is so riven with bias toward the particular individual that it becomes worthless. This subjectivity is incapable of being averaged out even when crowdsourced and so instead just becomes systemic.
It is the same issue that befalls another popular and noteworthy team performance and employee feedback concept: ‘ Radical Transparency’. Conceived by hedge-fund mogul, Ray Dalio, at its heart is the belief in taking things people would typically hide, particularly mistakes, problems and weaknesses and putting them on the table to be openly and collectively scrutinised. The concept is intended to translate to the adoption of actions and approaches that ‘radically’ increase the openness of organisational processes, data and, ultimately, improved decision-making.
Though they diagnose the fundamental shortcoming in both ‘Radical Candor’ and ‘Radical Transparency’, Buckingham and Goodall’s prescribed remedy is for individuals to abandon delivery of any negative subjective criticism and instead focus delivery on positive feedback. Essentially, they’re telling people not to worry about what they’re doing wrong because they won’t be able to do anything about it, so instead they should focus on what they’re doing right and keep working on that. They deny managers the ability to express what they need from their staff for them to fulfil their obligations to the wider function.
While this may be positive for perceived self-improvement, it offers little hope for fostering cooperation. If the customer is never asked for feedback on what they’re looking for and is instead asked repeatedly to spell out only the virtues of an individual’s performance then this offers a very narrow form of feedback that fails to drive toward the overall organisational function of maximising productivity.
[344 words]

Source: Management-Issues
Why It's Time To Break Up With Active Directory
OKATA , June 16, 2020
[Time 4]
Do you still use a cell phone designed in 1999? Would you risk letting your teenager drive a 20-year-old car with 20-year-old airbags? Probably not.
In an era of innovation and disruption, leading companies pride themselves on constantly adopting new and better technologies. So why is it that some of those same enterprises continue to rely on Microsoft’s 20-year-old Active Directory (AD)? You deserve better than Active Directory. Here’s why.
Thinking back to when we first met
Active Directory was first launched as a capability of Windows 2000 Server, and has underpinned Windows Server and Microsoft Exchange ever since. AD was designed to simplify access between Windows servers, desktops, and Microsoft business apps, providing easy access for file shares, printers and applications like SharePoint. While often tricky to implement, scale and support, AD allowed IT admins to easily manage permissions between Microsoft operating systems. It also offered a central directory for many corporate applications, storing user and device information such as passwords and email addresses. The problem is that AD was designed and optimized to work chiefly with Microsoft environments. This continues to this day, limiting your ability to support the modern IT workplace.
In today’s enterprise, the digital environment is more diverse than ever. Where AD used to be at the center of the enterprise with mostly Microsoft solutions, organizations now interact with countless new technologies and devices. These interactions must also safely extend access to contractors, partners and customers. Active Directory simply hasn’t evolved enough to keep up.
[250 words]

[Time 5]
It’s not you—it’s AD
More and more organizations are adopting best of breed cloud applications like Salesforce, Slack, Zoom and Box. While AD works great with Microsoft services, this change in the IT landscape is causing problems In terms of access management. As users demand access to a broader set of applications, they need a new way to securely connect to those applications, whether at work or on the go.
Active Directory was built to operate in environments with Windows-based PCs on desktops and Windows servers, all connected through a private corporate network. But today’s enterprise consists of laptops moving between networks with ease, and smartphones that are rarely connected to the corporate WiFi. File servers today are no longer traditional server message block (SMB) shares. Instead, services like Box and Google Drive allow for cloud-based storage with improved collaboration features.
Another area where AD held traditional importance was with printer networking. But the reduced need for printers in the modern workplace, along with the increased capabilities of modern printers (built in WiFi, access controls, on-board printer server, etc.), AD is no longer a requirement for optimal printer management.
In essence, where the enterprise has expanded, AD has remained static. Consequently, support for many of these new use cases requires more Microsoft software (such as Active Directory Federated Services (ADFS), Microsoft Identity Manager (MIM), or Active Directory Access Manager (ADAM)), and/or 3rd-party add-ons. The same goes for adding only a few cloud-based applications—AD requires extra software and complex network connectivity. It also requires key components of authentication in your on-premises environment, when the goal for modern companies should be to embrace cloud infrastructure.
Building more on-premises servers increases the burden for IT teams and opens the door to security vulnerabilities. To make matters worse, AD was designed around the concept of domains and trusts with organizational units. So, as businesses grow and acquire new companies, AD is becoming a sprawling burden of servers, requiring further software investments to manage them all.
All of these problems result in extra costs such as maintaining the AD infrastructure, extra software required to manage it all, resource costs, and time spent by the IT organization. These costs have spurred IT teams to happily move apps into the cloud, enjoying huge reductions in time and money.
[383 words]

[Time 6]
The evolving IT ecosystem is moving on
Growing cloud adoption over the last decade has led organizations to rethink how they tackle identity, authentication, security, and access. AD’s primary functions have been replaced by modern HRMS, IDaaS, and Enterprise Mobility Management solutions and, while IT still spends huge amounts of time trying to maintain it, several industry trends are chipping away at its hold over the enterprise.
As Apple and Android devices increasingly dominate the marketplace, modern businesses have no choice but to support bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies. So IT has to manage all types of devices, from tablets and smartphones to smartwatches—none of which can be natively managed in AD.
Today’s enterprises are comprised of more virtual, remote, and contract workers than ever before, increasing the complexity of user accounts and devices they need to manage. Yet the types of accounts companies are managing go way beyond employees and third parties accessing internal applications. More and more businesses are managing identities for their customers using new web-based technologies, which struggle to integrate with the old protocols exposed by AD. Businesses are employing  developers who expect to use web-based REST APIs to interact with services that underlie their applications, something AD does not support.
You don’t need AD to succeed
AD is a thing of the past—that’s clear. The good news? There are modern alternatives that can help your business meet its forward-thinking efforts. Shifting to a cloud-based identity platform will revolutionize your authentication and authorization processes, and transform the way your business manages users and devices.
Eliminating your reliance on AD can significantly improve your company’s technology infrastructure, increase agility, productivity, and scalability while reducing operational costs and freeing up IT resources. So, it’s time to break up with AD. In the weeks ahead, we’re going to explain exactly what you gain from minimizing or eliminating AD, the most efficient way to do that, and all the steps to start your journey.
[324 words]

Source: Entrepreneur
Part III: Obstacle
How Spotify and TikTok Beat Their Copycats
BY Jason Davis and Vikas A. Aggarwal,JULY 21, 2020

[Paraphrase 7]
In the digital economy, the race is often won by imitators who turn out to be more agile and creative than even the most successful first movers. Take the case of Snapchat. Created in 2011, it quickly reeled in millions of teenagers and young adults with a standout app on which shared photos disappear after 24 hours. Facebook reportedly tried, but failed, to buy Snapchat. So it did the next best thing: copy.
Facebook-owned Instagram simply replicated the main features of Snapchat Stories, rolling out Instagram Stories in 2016. Within a year, Instagram had crossed Snapchat’s daily active user (DAU) numbers – and then some – while the latter faltered. Although Snapchat has since regained some of its early influence, its experience shows that barriers to entry in the digital realm are low, even for established platforms that have already captured a significant user base.
The usual approach taken by first movers to protect their lead involves heavy investment in deploying their innovative know-how through in-house knowledge transfer and collaboration, the idea being that the company with the idea can stay ahead if it leverages its knowledge more quickly across employees and encourages teamwork.  The problem, as we’ve argued in a recent paper, is that companies that invest in leveraging their knowledge internally can actually end up benefiting the competition as much as themselves, particularly when the knowledge is easy to copy and can be shared among many rivals. We call this the knowledge-spillover sharing effect.
Given this, is there any hope for an innovator to succeed in the face of copycats?
The right formula, as we demonstrate in our paper, is one of complex continuous innovation, where individuals in the firm use recombination to repeatedly reconfigure elements of their existing knowledge, fusing this together to deliver new product solutions. While such a strategy can overcome the innovator’s imitation dilemma by thwarting rivals’ knowledge-spillover sharing effects, we also show that it can only do so if innovators tackle complex opportunities that are composed of many interdependent features. Let’s look at a couple of case studies demonstrating the approach in action.
How TikTok outsmarted Facebook
The meteoric rise of TikTok, the short-form video sharing service owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, is instructive. Created in 2017, TikTok has reached 1 billion users faster than any other platform, and is consistently one of the top downloaded apps. According toMark Zuckerberg, it is “the first consumer internet product built by one of the Chinese tech giants that is doing quite well around the world.”
TikTok’s growth and (near-term) sustainable competitive advantage comes from its ability to combine and recombine products and services from different categories. On the consumer side, TikTok’s algorithms quickly learn individual preferences by capturing users’ likes, comments, and time spent on each video. On the producer side, AI simplifies video editing and suggests music, hashtags, filters, and other enhancements that are trending or have been proven popular. Essentially, TikTok has recombined elements of these different technologies and applications to create a new category of bite-sized amateur entertainment, distinct from the chronicling of real life offered by Facebook.
Facebook’s efforts to replicate its triumph over Snapchat through imitation have thus far come to nothing. The social-media giant’s nixing of Lasso, the TikTok clone, in July speaks to the difficulty of emulating the Chinese app.
Outracing imitators the Spotify way
Another good example of using complex continuous innovation to stave off copycats is Spotify. Its seemingly simple music-streaming service is in fact a complex combination of a dynamically changing user-interface, behavioral prediction algorithms, and an ever-expanding catalog of music. Spotify learns a customer’s preferences and uses population-level predictions to suggest content that will ensure stickiness.
So successful is Spotify at innovating in a complex opportunity space that it has kept mighty Apple at bay. Despite extensive promotion of its service, Apple Music has not been able to capture a significant share of the music streaming market. Spotify meanwhile has continued to innovate via recombination, adding new features and categories that marry technology with content. The most recent example is its foray into podcasting, hitherto Apple’s domain, with a $100-million exclusive deal with popular podcaster Joe Rogan.
Ganging up on the innovator: Uber’s troubles
We’ve also found an interesting competitive dynamic working against the first mover. Copycats are willing to learn from one another – probably more so than the original innovator.  This makes it easier for them to catch up and overtake the first mover.
Look at what happened to Uber. Although the ride-sharing platform the company pioneered in 2010 was unique, it was relatively simple to replicate. Before long, rivals like Lyft in the US and Didi, Gojek, and Grab in Asia offered similar services and siphoned Uber’s market share. These companies learned by copying not only Uber but also one another, effectively ganging up on the more established innovator, whose early market dominance may have made it complacent.
Grab, Gojek, and Didi quickly adapted Uber’s map function to their own product, which they then adjusted based on one another’s modifications. There is some evidence Grab adapted Uber’s rider promotions and driver incentives, only to see Gojek use the same ideas. Copying continued to heat up as all three Asian players then pursued a hyper-diversified “super app” strategy. Grab appeared to copy Gojek’s proliferation of services in Indonesia, such as insurance, with their own offerings.  And some believe Gojek entered Singapore with data it scraped from Grab’s maps.  The result was a highly competitive marketplace that led to Uber’s exit from the region.
Given the knowledge-spillover sharing effects of the sort we’ve described, firms grappling with the imitation dilemma need to be careful about just how they mobilize their in-house knowledge resources. Trying to be faster than copycats, or focusing only on in-house knowledge transfer and collaboration, won’t be a sustainable strategy. Rather, they should focus on thwarting potential imitators by recombining knowledge in novel ways to tackle complex opportunities.
[984 words]

Source: Harvard Business Review


您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

发表于 2020-7-22 00:14:59 发自手机 Web 版 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2020-7-22 17:49:27 | 显示全部楼层
cliffhanger: a story or a situation which is exciting because its ending or result is uncertain util it happens

How spotify and tiktok beat their copycats
[Time] 8’50
It is common in the digital industry after a hot app or digital product comes out, there will be followed by a lot of imitator which may be even beyond the first creator. Generally, first movers try to take their lead by investing heavily in motiving internal knowledge transfer and collaboration in house but it has unavoidable disadvantage that the outcome may benefit competitors more than themselves. What can first movers do to beat copycats ? The author recommends the strategy: complex continuous innovation which means that individuals in the firm use recombination to repeatedly reconfigure elements of their existing knowledge, fusing this together to deliver new product solutions. Then the author takes advantage of two example, tiktok and spotify to elaborate on this approach.

Falter: to lose strength or purpose and stop, or almost stop
Thwart: to stop sth from happening/θwɔːt/
Meteoric: develop very fast
Emulating: imitate sb, to copy sth achieved by someone else and try to do it as well as they have
They hope to emulate the success of other software companies
Stave off copycats 避开抄袭者
Complacent 自满的 a complacent attitude
First mover 先驱者
The usual approach taken by first movers / generally
表达正确应该怎么做, the right formula is ….
In the digital economy, the race is often won by imitators who turn out to be more agile and creative than even the most successful first movers.
(snapchat) Created in 2011, it quickly reeled in millions of teenagers and young adults with a standout app on which shared photos disappear after 24 hours.
发表于 2020-7-22 21:36:53 | 显示全部楼层
agile:able to move quickly and easily.
reeled in millions of teenagers
falter:start to lose strength or momentum.
heavy investment in deploying their innovative know-how through in-house knowledge transfer and collaboration
thwarting rivals’ knowledge-spillover sharing effects
tackle complex opportunities
it has kept mighty Apple at bay
Gang up on the innovator
siphon:siphoned Uber’s market share(a tube used to convey liquid upwards from a reservoir and then down to a lower level of its own accord. Once the liquid has been forced into the tube, typically by suction or immersion, flow continues unaided.)
complacent:showing smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.
grapple:seize or hold with a grapnel
发表于 2020-7-22 23:49:45 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2020-7-22 23:56:55 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2020-7-23 13:38:31 | 显示全部楼层
T2:  3:49
T4: 1:30  
T5: 2:12
发表于 2020-7-23 23:01:48 | 显示全部楼层
T2:  2“58
发表于 2020-7-25 18:04:01 | 显示全部楼层
ob:6'04''  In the digital economy, the race is often won by imitators who turn out to be more agile and creative than even the most successful first movers.Besides,he take the case of Snapchat,Tik tok and Spotify to argue the title"How Spotify and TikTok Beat Their Copycats“
发表于 2020-7-28 13:40:50 | 显示全部楼层
Congress is back to session. 2 trillion dollars has been delivered to the people.
Not for unemployment but more everyone.
30 million people is getting unemployment insurance payment. 2 third are getting more money than their previous work.  
Spending is the life-blood of the economy. Unemployment worker lose the benefit will be a devastating for themselves but also for the whole economy. But some state paying a lot unemployment benefit more are repelling worker from going back to their work.

Time2 [449 words] 3:19
Radical candor is a new school of management thinking that encourage manager to challenging directly and at the same time with empathy. Requiring focus on the individual improvement but may loss the broader corporate goals.
Another theory is fixed and growth thinking
The third one is a development theory from those two mentioned before.  Effective corporation is the critical factor for a corporate.
Time3 [344 words] 2:44
Time4 [250 words] 1:40
In the time of innovation and disturbing, lots of the management still use Active Dictionary. The key reason is the function was integrated inside of the Microsoft application and it was very helpful to do the permission settlement. However, the evolvement of the AD is not enough to fit the more diverse and countless needs now.
Time5 [383 words] 2:34
Going cloud, changing method of connecting printer, more and more different server combined being used by the company emerge the limitation of using the traditional AD.  
Time6 [324 words] 1:53
Breaking up with AD will improve your company’s technology infrastructure, increase agility, productivity and scalability while reducing operational costs and freeing up IT resources

Part III: Obstacle [984 words] 8:30

New words:
Dubbed 打击
Cohesive 紧密结合
Irrespective: 不考虑,不论
Gauge: measure
Scrutinized: 审查
Faltered:蹒跚的走, 不太成功的,犹豫的
Instructive:教育性, 指导性
Copycat: 盲目的模仿者
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

GMT+8, 2020-8-5 04:27 , Processed in 0.130356 second(s), 6 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2020 All Rights Reserved.