Question

. Read the following passage and answer the questions. Wayback in 1990, Fortune magazine guesstimated that there were twenty-five million meetings worldwide on a single day. Five years later, Alan Barker put the figure at fifty million. Apparently in the UK alone four million hours are spent every day on meetings. Thirty years down the line when a click of the mouse connects you with people across the world, one can just imagine where the figures would be now! No one can be sure of these figures, but one thing is certain. There are many committees and many meetings in any organization of any size. In fact, too many. Managers have taken to heart the old proverb, “Two heads are better than one.” They call meetings with notice and without, day in and day out. They ignore another proverb of equal vintage, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” Pierre Martineau says in this context, “In some organisations there is a pyramid structure, with various subordinates arranged in some kind of rank. Too often their conferences end in nothing, because the low men on the totem poles say nothing, and first lieutenants are wrangling about completely irrelevant subjects. They are not trying to communicate any information but just to put on record that they are smart people. And when they start attacking and defending ideas, they are simply showing brilliance.” Meetings then are a facet of corporate life that needs close scrutiny; you are going to be drawn into them whether you like it or not. i) How does the proverb “Two heads are better than one” relate to meetings? ii) As per the passage are meetings necessary? iii) What is meant by ‘meetings are a necessary evil’? iv) What could be the reason that some people in the meetings remain non participative and some participations are irrelevant?

Answer 1

Ответ:

1. It's quite straightforward, actually. Two people working together have a better chance of solving a problem than one person working alone.

2. As per the passage, meetings are necessary but not to the extent of calling a meeting for meeting's sake.

3. Meetings are a facet of corporate life that needs close scrutiny, so you are going to be drawn into them whether you like it or not.

4. Some people in the meetings remain non participative because of their low status in a corporate hierarchy, and some participations are irrelevant because they don't try to communicate any information but just to put on record that they are smart people.

Объяснение:

Answer 2

i) The proverb "Two heads are better than one" relates to meetings in the sense that it emphasizes the idea that collaboration and collective decision-making, involving multiple perspectives or ideas, can lead to better outcomes or solutions than relying on a single person's opinion or judgment. Managers often call meetings with this principle in mind, hoping that by bringing together multiple individuals, they can generate better ideas or make more informed decisions.

ii) According to the passage, meetings are indeed a common and frequent occurrence in organizations of any size. The passage does not explicitly state whether meetings are necessary or unnecessary, but it implies that while meetings are prevalent, they may not always be as effective or efficient as they could be, given the potential downsides mentioned in the passage.

iii) The phrase "meetings are a necessary evil" implies that while meetings are a common and sometimes essential part of corporate life, they are also viewed negatively by some people due to potential inefficiencies, unproductive discussions, and time-wasting aspects associated with them. In other words, meetings are considered necessary for certain purposes, such as collaboration and decision-making, but they can also be burdensome or problematic if not managed properly.

iv) The passage suggests that there are several reasons why some people in meetings may remain non-participative, and some participations may be irrelevant:

a) Hierarchy and Rank: In some organizations, there is a pyramid structure with various levels of subordinates. Lower-ranking individuals may feel intimidated or reluctant to speak up in the presence of higher-ranking colleagues. This can lead to their silence in meetings.

b) Irrelevant Discussions: Meetings may devolve into discussions about unrelated or irrelevant topics. This can happen when participants veer off track and start arguing about issues that are not directly related to the meeting's purpose or agenda.

c) Ego and Posturing: Some participants may use meetings as opportunities to showcase their intelligence or assert their dominance rather than focusing on productive communication. They may engage in arguments and debates for the sake of appearing smart or influential.

d) Lack of Clear Purpose: Meetings that lack a clear agenda or purpose can result in confusion and a lack of engagement from participants. When people don't understand why they're in a meeting or what's expected of them, they may not contribute meaningfully.

In summary, the passage suggests that various factors, including hierarchy, irrelevant discussions, ego-driven behavior, and unclear meeting objectives, can contribute to non-participation and irrelevant participation in meetings.