The main idea of these business schools is appealing.In a world where companies must adapt to new technologies and source of competition，it is much harder than it used to be to offer good employees job security and an opportunity to climb the corporate ladder.Yet it is also more necessary than ever for employees to invest in better skills and sparkle with bright ideas.How can firms get the most out of people if they can no longer offer them protection and promotion?
Many bosses would love to have an answer.Sumantra Ghoshal of the London Business School and Christopher Bartlett of the Harvard Business School think they have one：“Employability”。If managers offer the right kinds of training and guidance，and change their attitude towards their underlings，they will be able to reassure their employees that they will always have the skills and experience to find a good job—even if it is with a different company.
Unfortunately，they promise more than they deliver.Their thoughts on what an ideal organization should achieve are hard to quarrel with：encourage people to be creative，make sure the gains from creativity are shared with the pains of the business that can make the most of them，keep the organization from getting stale and so forth.The real disappointment comes when they attempt to show how firms might actually create such an environment.At its nub is the notion that companies can attain their elusive goals by changing their implicit contract with individual workers，and treating them as a source of value rather than a cog in a machine.
The authors offer a few inspiring examples of companies——they include Motorola， 3M and ABB—that have managed to go some way towards creating such organizations.But they offer little useful guidance on how to go about it，and leave the biggest questions unanswered.How do you continuously train people，without diverting them from their everyday job of making the business more profitable? How do you train people to be successful elsewhere while still encouraging them to make big commitments to your own firm? How do you get your newly liberated employees to spend their time on ideas that create value，and not simply on those they enjoy? Most of their answers are platitudinous，and when they are not they are unconvincing.
1.We can infer from the passage that in the past an employee .
[A]had job security and opportunity of promotion
[B]had to compete with each other to keep his job
[C]had to undergo training all the time
[D]had no difficulty climbing the corporate ladder
2.According to Christopher Bartlett what will improve“employability”?
[A] Ability to lay out one‘s talents to employers.
[B]Skills and knowledge accumulated from school education.
[C] Training opportunity and guidance offered by company.
[D]Being creative and ready to share collective wisdom.
3.What does the writer of this passage think of the ideas of Ghoshal and Bartlett?
[A] Very instructive. [B] Very inspiring.
[C] Hard to implement. [D] Quite harsh.
4.In their work，Ghoshal and Bartlett discuss .
[A]changes in business organizations
[B]contracts between employers and employees
5.This passage seems to be a(n) .
[A]book review [B]advertisement[C]news report [D]research paper
appealing adj.吸引人的;parkle v.(使)闪耀;reassure vt.使恢复信心;stale adj.陈腐的;implicit adj.暗示的。盲从的;inspiring adj.鼓舞的;divert v.转移;profitable adj.有利可图的。
1.A推断题。由题干关键词in the past和employee定位文章第一段的it is much harder than it used to be to offer good employee job security and an opportunity to climb the corporate ladder可看出，过去一名优秀的职员很容易获得工作保障和晋升机会，结合选项可知，A正确。且由该句话可知在过去工作上的竞争并不算残酷，因此排除B(必须和别人竞争);文中并未谈到过去有什么培训，故排除C(必须总是接受培训);D(在公司获得晋升毫无不费力)过于绝对。
3.C态度题。题干问作者对Ghoshal and Bartlett的观点有何看法。从第三段的Unfortunately，they promise more than they deliver…(令人遗憾的是，他们所做的承诺远远超出他们实际所能做到的)以及下文提到的The real disappointment comes…可以看出，作者对Ghoshal和Bartlett的观点不以为然，认为这两个人许诺的比实际提供的要多，可见作者认为他们的观点不切实际，故选C.
5.A推断题。判断此题的关键在最后一段，由该段首句The author offers a few example of companies…but they offer little useful guidance…中的关键词the author可推知，本文属于书评，故应选A.