The distracted supervisor is not a new development, of course. Even without a cell phone, bosses can snub their employees by not giving them their full attention, whether it's twirling a pen or leafing through other documents.But could boss phubbing be a calculated power move on the supervisor's part - a signal to the employee that he or she is dispensable and unimportant? While that tactic may have worked in the past, the researchers noted, it is unlikely that it would be effective today. Cell phones are so ubiquitous now that they do not necessarily convey the same prestige or authority that they may have before.For both bosses and employees, this study has important implications for workplace culture. Specifically, the researchers recommended that bosses and employees be trained in sensitivity, so that everyone recognizes the negative impact of phubbing on workplace relationships. They also suggested that supervisors be evaluated not just on quantitative measures like sales numbers, but also whether employees trust or respect them. And if all else fails, companies should consider setting formal "smartphone policies" on when and where phones can be used in the workplace.What can companies do to deal with boss phubbing?A. Evaluate employees according to whether supervisors trust them.B. Consider forbidding the use of cell phones in the workplace.C. Evaluate supervisors mainly by means of quantitative measures.D. Train supervisors and employees should recognize the impact of phubbing.
The distracted supervisor is not a new development, of course. Even without a cell phone, bosses can snub their employees by not giving them their full attention, whether it's twirling a pen or leafing through other documents. But could boss phubbing be a calculated power move on the supervisor's part - a signal to the employee that he or she is dispensable and unimportant? While that tactic may have worked in the past, the researchers noted, it is unlikely that it would be effective today. Cell phones are so ubiquitous now that they do not necessarily convey the same prestige or authority that they may have before. For both bosses and employees, this study has important implications for workplace culture. Specifically, the researchers recommended that bosses and employees be trained in sensitivity, so that everyone recognizes the negative impact of phubbing on workplace relationships. They also suggested that supervisors be evaluated not just on quantitative measures like sales numbers, but also whether employees trust or respect them. And if all else fails, companies should consider setting formal "smartphone policies" on when and where phones can be used in the workplace. What can companies do to deal with boss phubbing? A. Evaluate employees according to whether supervisors trust them. B. Consider forbidding the use of cell phones in the workplace. C. Evaluate supervisors mainly by means of quantitative measures. D. Train supervisors and employees should recognize the impact of phubbing.
题目解答
答案
解析
本题考查对文章细节信息的理解和把握，解题思路是仔细阅读文章中关于公司应对“老板冷落”（boss phubbing）措施的相关内容，然后将各选项与原文进行逐一比对分析。
- 首先明确文章中提到的公司应对“老板冷落”的措施：
- 对老板和员工进行敏感性培训，让他们认识到“冷落”对工作关系的负面影响。
- 评估老板时，不仅依据销售数字等量化指标，还要看员工是否信任或尊重他们。
- 制定正式的“智能手机政策”，规定在工作场所何时何地可以使用手机。
- 接着分析各选项：
- A选项：“Evaluate employees according to whether supervisors trust them.”，原文是评估老板是否被员工信任，而不是评估员工是否被老板信任，所以A选项不符合文意。
- B选项：“Consider forbidding the use of cell phones in the workplace.”，文中只是建议制定政策规定手机使用的时间和地点，并非完全禁止在工作场所使用手机，所以B选项不符合文意。
- C选项：“Evaluate supervisors mainly by means of quantitative measures.”，原文强调评估老板不仅要看量化指标，还要看员工的信任和尊重程度，并非主要通过量化指标评估，所以C选项与文意相反。
- D选项：“Train supervisors and employees to recognize the impact of phubbing.”，这与原文中提到的对老板和员工进行敏感性培训，使他们意识到“冷落”对工作关系的负面影响这一措施相符，所以D选项符合文意。