AI A2 求思路指导！~

yoyoz7

新增题A2. “Constant innovation and change within an organization are as likely to damage the organization as they are to improve it.”

我的模板是部分同意加一些些疏忽的那种
套到这个题目中应该如何运用？

另外此题中重点到的是在improve还是damage？
求高人指导！！

策力

这题。。题目我也正在纠结。。。。

yoyoz7

顶起来，求高人指点！~

mikiqmouse

这个是借用高人的 可以一起研究～ 希望有帮助
The statement of the issue claims that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to

demage the organization, just like they are likely to improve it. The seemingly simple and straight-forward

issue has a complex nature, therefore there are hardly any certainly answers to it. To some extent, I agree

with the author's viewpoint that constant innovation and change within an organization may not always be a

good thing for an organization. However, as different people may hold different opinion due to distinctive

education levels, family backgrouds, value judgements and life experience, we can not simply conclude that

constant innovation and change within an organization are in all cases, like to demage the organization. To

discuss this complex issue we need to perform a careful case-by-case analysis as discussed below.

Firstly, the issue that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to demage the

organization, just like they are likely to improve it, is correct in some cases. For example, for a small company,

the expense of innovation and change might be too expensive for them to afford, if they kept constant

innovation and change that might demage the company's finance and it may fall bankruptcy. Also, the same

applied to more traditional companies, like corporate finance side of the investment banks, they earn credits

because they provide constant good services to their corporate clients, not because they kept changing the

way of financing the debts. The more tradtional ways are preferred in the sectors which orgainizations are

expected to perform constant and stable.

On the other hand, the issue is only partically correct, due to differenct natures of different organization

sectors. Admittedly, the bank's corporate finance and probably also the private banking sector should not

always come up with new ideas as the clients want them to be safe and stable. However, other divisions in

an investment bank, say Information Technology or Fixed Income products divisions, need a lot of innovation

to be successful. For instance, in order to improve the business, one of the largest investment bank, Goldman

Sachs, invested a huge amount of money in the research of their Fixed Income, Currency and Derivatives

department, and as a result, they earn excessive return in this business. This investment is not wasted, but

in the opposite, save the company from the recent subprime crisis. I belive that is a very good example to

illustrate that in many cases, still, the innovation and change within an organization are valuable.

In addition, we need to take into accout the pros and cons of the innovation and change within an

organization. Carefully weighing the cost and benefits and find the break-even point of the two are crucial.

For example, if the cost of the innovation and change is higher than the benefit of it, we should not put

money into the innovation and change within an organization. In the opposite, if the cost of the innovation

and change is lower than the benefit of it, we should certainly invest in the innovation and change within an

organization.

To sum up, although the claim that constant innovation and change within an organization are likely to

demage the organization as they are to improve it, has some merit due to the fact that smaller companies

and traditional companies may not benefit as much in the innovation, is still not convincing in certain cases as

I discussed in the third paragraph. To take all these factors into account, we can safely arrive at the

conclusion that, the constant innovation and change within an organization is morely likely to benefit largers

organization in the emerging markets and high technology markets than the more traditional ones and the

smaller ones.

yoyoz7

同学，纠结出来了么？？出来了指点一下吧

yoyoz7

谢谢你的例文， 我纠结的是，翻译成中文是：创新和改变可能是一个提高，就像可能是损坏一样吗？如果这么翻译，作者的的重点是在提高吗？

mikiqmouse

我理解的中文意思是 持续的革新，可能给组织带来成长，也可能带来同样的伤害.
....有点太大白话了 但是意思我觉得应该就是这么个样子了 呵呵

觉得重点是：变化好不好 。。。我的想法是好。


LZ觉得呢？