V1【段落大意】：

　　第一段：

　　金融危机造成美国企业大量裁员，美国经济结构发生改变，对于企业组织架构和中层管理层的合同关系产生了影响。原先的mid-level management在large corporate很安逸，他们都和公司之间有一种非正式的agreement即：每年都会有一定的工资增长，就是life-long pay check，若干年有一定的晋升，也就是说不管企业做的怎么样，对经理们压力不大，他们依旧加工资升值，所以企业效率不高，这种组织架构对于企业发展不利。由于此种制度，美国企业没有能够迅速恢复竞争力(有题，问作者对此种制度的看法)。后来这种许诺逐渐消失。

　　第二段：

　　这样的改变对企业是有好处的。裁员导致经理人职业安全感下降，但能促进其更好地创新和开拓从两个方面说：企业能够提升效率，对于原先的那种 agreement的抛弃可以迫使经理们做出改变，能更加creative一些。而经理们也不能想以前那样混日子了，要想在企业中生存，就不能像以前那样想着怎么快速晋升，而是要不断的利用培训提高自身的技能skill并且不断的挑战环境，这是唯一出路。现在corporate structure delayer了之后开始看重manager creativity & innovation to solve problem。

　　【问题】

　　Q1：第一段主要讲了什么?

　　Q2: today's downsizing 与 1980时的downsizing有什么不同?

　　Q3: 主旨题

　　Q4: 作者认为hierarchy怎么样?(参考：降低了企业效率)

　　Q5: 现在更看重什么?(参考：creativity and solving problem skill)

　　V2【段落大意】：

　　第一段：

　　一般研究都认为规模和盈利能力呈正相关，empirical research 也证实了，大公司有规模经济(economics of scale)等优点，但是并不能说二者就是因果关系。然后作者开始论证了，比如小公司更容易调整自己的output ，更能应对environmental change, 更擅长niche market。

　　第二段：

　　提出作者支持的观点，说有的公司是有自己的norm的，形成了这样的norm以后，整个公司的人都认同什么样的管理是好的什么样的是不好的，所以有时候经济因素并不是决定裁员的首要因素。而且这个norm有时候会使管理者想不到一些practice的alternative。

　　第三段：根据研究，中型公司实际上投资回报率(ROI)最低。市场份额在65%-70%之间是watershed，超过这个范围，ROI就降低了。而且作者特别提到，面对stable market，小公司做得好一定是因为niche market strategy。

　　【参考阅读】

　　Firms traditionally claim that they downsize (i.e., make permanent personnel cuts) for economic reasons, laying off supposedly unnecessary staff in an attempt to become more efficient and competitive. Organization theory would explain this reasoning as an example of the “economic rationality” that it assumes underlies all organizational activities. There is evidence that firms believe they are behaving rationally whenever they downsize; yet recent research has shown that the actual economic effects of downsizing are often negative for firms. Thus, organization theory cannot adequately explain downsizing; non-economic factors must also be considered. One such factor is the evolution of downsizing into a powerful business myth: managers simply believe that downsizing is efficacious. Moreover, downsizing nowadays is greeted favorably by the business press; the press often refers to soaring stock prices of downsizing firms (even though research shows that stocks usually rise only briefly after downsizing and then suffer a prolonged decline). Once viewed as a sign of desperation, downsizing is now viewed as a signal that firms are serious about competing in the global marketplace; such signals are received positively by key actors— financial analysts, consultants, shareholders—who supply firms with vital organizing resources. Thus, even if downsizers do not become economically more efficient, downsizing’s mythic properties give them added prestige in the business community, enhancing their survival prospects.

　　1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

　　A. criticize firms for engaging in the practice of downsizing

　　B. analyze the negative economic impact of downsizing on firms

　　C. offer an alternative to a traditional explanation for the occurrence of downsizing

　　D. chronicle how perceptions of downsizing have changed over time

　　E. provide evidence disputing the prevalence of downsizing

　　2. The passage suggests that downsizing’s mythic properties can be beneficial to a downsizing firm because these properties

　　A. allow the firm to achieve significant operating efficiencies

　　B. provide the firm with access to important organizing resources

　　C. encourage a long-term increase in the firm’s stock price

　　D. make the firm less reliant on external figures such as financial analysts and consultants

　　E. discourage the firm’s competitors from entering the global marketplace

　　3. The passage suggests which of the following about the claim that a firm will become more efficient and competitive by downsizing?

　　A. Few firms actually believe this claim to be true.

　　B. Fewer firms have been making this claim in recent years.

　　C. This claim contradicts the basic assumption of organization theory.

　　D. This claim is called into question by certain recent research.

　　E. This claim is often treated with skepticism by the business press.