“The rise of multinational corporations is leading to global homogeneity*. Because people everywhere are beginning to want the same products and services, regional differences are rapidly disappearing.”
* homogeneity: sameness, similarity(65)
1. The so-called cultural innovation does exists. Let's take KFC as an example. Its standard design, decoration and food supplied in every chain all around the world influence people consume its product and service.
2. However, to say the multinational corporations do no good to promote and improve the unique culture of the nations where their branches are located is very imprudent.
3. Ideally, the multinational corporations should incorporate the culture of the target country's cultrue with the corporate culture and the culture it belongs to.
1， 首先，前提是错误的。因为各地差异不同，所以全球化的大公司，想在所有地方都提供一样的产品服务是不现实的。empirical evidence: 很多成功的大企业，往往是那些充分认识到不同，从而采用不同的策略的。不能保持完全一致的策略，let alone 更不用说完全一样的产品和服务。比如：KFC等fast food，在中国都针对口味偏好开发了很多新产品。
2， Moreover, 地区差异不会消失，有更深层次的原因on much deeper level。第一，文化的差异，信仰的不同，很难靠产品和服务改变。比如，即使使用最先进的日本Panasonic产的电视，美国人用来传播transmit democratic principles, while中国人可能用来publicize the thoughts of Mao, or Confucius… 第二，习俗的差异，custom。比如，尽管很多年轻人在中国开始celebrate the Valentine’s Day, 但是在所有中国人心中，最重要的节日仍然是Spring Festival。这是什么样的产品都不能改变的。
Homogeneity/ homogeneous/ homogenize/
Difference/ divergence/ deviation/ variance/ disagreement/ conflict
View1: the development of multinational corporations does enhance global unity by bringing the same methods of business administration as well as products and services throughout the world.
Evidence: western fast food bring by global chain express such us McDonald’s and KFC have change our diet habits a lot
View2: however, the effect of multinational corporations is far from eliminating regional deference. The corporations itself is blend in the regional features.
Evidence: Lay’s, one of the most successful multinational food manufacturers, add some flavor of traditional Asian dishes to its potato chips in order to attract foreign customers.
Although global homogeneity in a broader sense may not be as inexorable as the speaker here suggests, I agree that multinational corporations are indeed creating global sameness in consumer preferences. This homogeneity is manifested in two concurrent megatrends: (1) the embracing of American popular culture throughout the world, and (2) a synthesis of cultures, as reflected in consumer preferences.
The first trend is toward Americanization of popular culture throughout the world. In food and fashion, once a nation’s denizens “fall into the Gap” or get a taste of a Coke or Big Mac, their preferences are forever Westernized. The ubiquitous Nike “swoosh,” which nearly every soccer player in the world will soon don, epitomizes this phenomenon. In media, the cultural agendas of giants such as Time-Warner now drive the world’s entertainment preferences. The Rolling Stones and the stars of America’s prime-time television shows are revered among young people worldwide, while Mozart’s music, Shakespeare’s prose, and Ghandi’s ideology are largely ignored.
A second megatrend is toward a synthesis of cultures into a homogenous stew. The popularity of “world music” and of the “New Age” health care and leisure-time activities aptly illustrate this blending of Eastern, Western and third-world cultures. Perhaps nowhere is the cultural-stew paradigm more striking, and more bland (blander), than at the international “food courts” now featured in malls throughout the developed world.
These trends appear inexorable. Counter-attacks, such as Ebonies, rap music, and bilingual education, promote the distinct culture of minority groups, but not of nations. Further homogenization of consumer preferences is all but ensured by failing trade barriers, coupled with the global billboard that satellite communications and the Internet provide.
In sum, American multinationals have indeed instigated a homogeneous global, yet American-style, consumerism—one which in all likelihood will grow in extent along with free-market capitalism and global connectivity.
“Responsibility for preserving the natural environment ultimately belongs to each individual person, not to government.”
View1: Experience tells us that individuals tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large.
View2:the government has certain advantages in preserving the environment.
Evidence:the government can place certain regulations on the wastes and pollutants towards environment emitted by industries.
Fines deprived from corporations and individual ones that disobey the environmental regulations can be used on many ways such as preserve the forests, planting trees, create conserved areas that will improve our current situations.
While nearly everyone would agree in principle that certain efforts to preserve the natural environment are in humankind’s best interest, environmental issues always involve a tug of war among conflicting political and economic interests. For this reason, and because serious environmental problems are generally large in scale, government participation is needed to ensure environmental preservation.
Experience tells us that individuals (and private corporations owned by individuals) tend to act on behalf of their own short-term economic and political interest, not on behalf of the environment or the public at large. For example, current technology makes possible the complete elimination of polluting emissions from automobiles. Nevertheless, neither automobile manufacturers nor consumers are willing or able to voluntarily make the short-term sacrifices necessary to accomplish this goal. Only the government holds the regulatory and enforcement power to impose the necessary standards and to ensure that we achieve such goals.
Aside from the problems of self-interest and enforcement, environmental issues inherently involve public health and are far too pandemic in nature for individuals to solve on their own. Many of the most egregious environmental violations traverse state and sometimes national borders. Environmental hazards are akin to those involving food and drug safety and to protecting borders against enemies; individuals have neither the power nor the resources to address these widespread hazards.
In the final analysis, only the authority and scope of power that a government possesses can ensure the attainment of agreed-upon environmental goals. Because individuals are incapable of assuming this responsibility, government must do so.
Employees should keep private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.
题库No.9 “Employees should keep their private lives and personal activities as separate as possible from the workplace.”
1、Personal activities should not be brought to one's workplace since they can reduce one's efficiency. Thinking about one's private life can distract one from his or her work.
2、Talking about private life and doing personal activities can disturb other fellow workers.
3、It is inevitable for a person to think about his or her private life and to do some personal activities at the workplace. But an employee should do his or her best to focus on the work when at workplace.
1、It is true that employees can hardly only work like a machine, that is to say, inevitably, they may carry some personal emotions while working. Sharing the personal interests and activities moderately may help build the positive relationship among colleagues.
2、However, it is not a wise choice to let the employees to bring all their private life and personal activities to the workplace. 仍然举上面的例子来说，a mother worried about her child cannot efficiently focus on her task even if the deadline is coming. a girl who breaks up with her boyfriend during the work time will probably talk to other fellows about the bad emotion, which may have a potentially negative influence on the productivity of the staff. so on… allow personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers.(sample)
Should employees leave their personal lives entirely behind them when they enter the workplace, as the speaker suggests here? While I agree that employees should not allow their personal lives to interfere with their jobs, the speaker fails to consider that integrating personal life with work can foster a workplace ambiance that helps everyone do a better job, thereby promoting success for the organization.
Engaging coworkers in occasional conversation about personal interests and activities can help build collegiality among coworkers that adds to their sense of common purpose on the job. Managers would be well advised to participate in and perhaps even plan the sharing of personal information—as a leadership tool as well as a morale booster. An employee feels valued when the boss takes time to ask about the employee’s family or recent vacation. The employee, in turn, is likely to be more loyal to and cooperative with the boss. Company-sponsored social events—picnics, parties, excursions, and so forth—also help to produce greater cohesiveness in an organization, by providing opportunities for employees to bond with one another in ways that translate into better working relationships.
Admittedly, employees should guard against allowing their personal life to impinge upon their job performance or intrude on coworkers. Excessive chatting about non-business topics, frequent personal telephone calls, and the like, are always distracting. And romances between coworkers are best kept confidential, at least to the extent they disrupt work or demoralize or offend other employees. By the same token, however, employees who are too aloof—sharing nothing personal with others—may be resented by coworkers who perceive them as arrogant, unfriendly, or uncooperative. The ill-will and lack of communication that is likely to result may ultimately harm the organization.
In the final analysis, employees should strike a careful balance when they mix their personal lives with their jobs. Although there are some circumstances in which bringing one’s personal life to the job may be counterproductive, for many reasons it is a good idea to inject small doses of personal life into the workplace.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology GRE: 1353 GMAT:720 Stanford University (CA) GRE: 1354 GMAT:720 University of California–Berkeley GRE: 1353 GMAT:707 Georgia In
GMAT考试是美国管理专业招收研究生委员会主办和负责指导的考试, 其英文全称是Graduate Management Admission Test。GMAT考试的科目包括会计学、经济学、管理学、普通管理、生产管理、行政管理、