提醒:点这里加小编微信(领取免费资料、获取最新资讯、解决考教师一切疑问!)

Cooperation  at work is generally  seen  as  a good thing. The latest  survey by the Financial Times of what employers want from MBA graduates found that the ability to work with a wide variety  of people  was  what  managers  wanted  most.  But  managers  always  have  to  balance  the benefits of teamwork, which help ensure that everyone is working towards the  same goal, with the  dangers  of "groupthink" when  critics  are reluctant to point  out  a plan's  drawbacks  for  fear of being  kept  out  of the  group.  The  disastrous  Bay  of Pigs  invasion  of Cuba  in  1961  was  a classic  case  of groupthink.  Skeptics  were  reluctant  to  challenge  John  F.  Kennedy,  the  newly elected  American  president.
Modern  communication  methods  mean  that  cooperation  is  more  frequent.  Workers  are constantly in touch with each other via e-mail messaging groups or mobile calls. But does that improve,  or  lower  performance?  A  new  study  by  three  American  academics,  tried  to  answer this question. They  set a logical problem (designing the  shortest route for a travelling  salesman visiting  various  cities).  Three  groups  were  involved:  one  where  subjects  acted  independently; another where they saw the solutions posted by team members at every stage; and a third where they were kept informed of each other's views only intermittently.
The  survey  found  that  members  of the  individualist  group  reached  the  premier  solution more  often  than  the  constant  cooperators  but  had  a  poorer  average  result.  The   intermittent cooperators  found  the  right  result  as  often  as  the  individualists,  and  got  a  better  average solution. When it comes to ideal generation, giving people a bit of space to a solution seems to be  a  good  idea.  Occasional  cooperation  can be  a big help: most people have benefited  from  a colleague's brainwave or (just as often) wise advice to avoid a particular course of action.
Further  clues  come  from  a  book,  Superminds,  by  Thomas  Malone  of the  Massachusetts Institute  of  Technology.  He  says  that  three  factors  determine  the  collective  intelligence  of cooperating  groups:  social  intelligence  (how  good people were  at rating the  emotional  states  of others);  the  extent  to  which  members  took  part  equally  in  conversation  (the  more  equal,  the better);  and  the  cooperation  of women  in  the  group  (the  higher,  the  better).  Groups  ranked highly in these areas cooperated far better than others.
In short, cooperation may be a useful tool but it doesn't work in every situation.
34.  The  author  cites  the  example  of  The  Bay  of  Pigs  invasion  of  Cuba  in  paragraph  1  to A. prove that team players are skilled at communication
B. show that teamwork cannot always be beneficial
C. prove that critics are unwilling to challenge anybody
D. show the danger of groupthink is not very serious
35. The underlined phrase  "the intermittent cooperators" in paragraph 3 refers to                    
A. those who do not cooperate but reach the best solution
B.those  who  are  seldom  informed  of other's  views
C.those  who  cooperate  with  others  occasionally
D.the  constant  cooperators with  a poor  average result
36.Which  of the  following  factors makes  a team  cooperate better?
A.Group  members  cooperating  all  the  time.
B.Group  members  in  a  good  emotional  state.
C. Equal distribution of men and women.
D.Equal  participation  in  the  communication.
37.Which can be the best title of the passage?
A.When  Teamwork  Works
B. What Teamwork Is About
C.  How  Teamwork  Operates
D.A  Useful  Tool:  Cooperation

提醒:点这里加小编微信(领取免费资料、获取最新资讯、解决考教师一切疑问!)