ⅠOne by one, the glittering prizes are falling to women. General Motors, IBM and PepsiCo are among a couple of dozen giant American companies with female bosses. The trend is clear: women now make up more than 50% of university graduates and of new hires by big employers. Will this growing cadre of female bosses manage any differently from men? Forty years ago feminists would have found the very question demeaning. But today some management scholars argue that women excel in the leadership qualities most valued in modern firms.
ⅡSupporters of this position are fond of quoting two studies by McKinsey, in 2007 and 2008, of large groups of managers in a variety of businesses. The consulting firm found that five 「leadership behaviours」 are seen in women more frequently than in men: people-development; setting expectations and rewards; providing role models; giving inspiration; and participative decision-making. By contrast, the two that men were found to adopt more often than women sound rather old-fashioned: control and corrective action; and individualistic decision-making.
ⅢHowever, the claim that women make better leaders needs to be weighed against three considerations. The first is that lumping women bosses together obscures the huge differences between them. There are plenty of female bosses who are as hard-headed as any male. After Harriet Green took charge of Thomas Cook, a struggling travel business, she got rid of 2,500 staff and cut senior management posts by one-third. Jill Abramson, the first female editor of the New York Times, was removed for 「arbitrary decision-making」, a 「failure to consult」 and 「inadequate communication」.
ⅣThe second consideration is that both male and female managers are perfectly capable of adapting their leadership styles to meet changing circumstances. In a 2013 study of 917 managers in Norway—a country that has led the way in female-friendly policies, from board quotas to public child care—Anne Grethe Solberg, a sociologist, concluded that: 「Men and women don’t have different styles of leadership.」
ⅤThe third, and main, problem with the argument that women do a better job in running a company is the lack of solid evidence that putting more women into senior jobs improves a business’s performance. Several early studies in this field found that companies with more women in their executive suites and on their boards had better financial outcomes. But two studies of public companies in Norway, following legislation requiring them to give at least 40% of board seats to women, found that increasing the number of women had a negative effect on profits.
ⅥThose arguing that women leaders are different, and better, may have the best of intentions. But they are piling flimsy evidence on dubious argument to produce politically correct hokum. In some societies such claims risk reinforcing stereotypes about the sort of job that women are 「good for」. The only enlightened policy for selecting leaders is to judge people purely on their individual merits. Anything else is just prejudice in disguise.
1.glittering [ˈglɪtərɪŋ] a. 輝煌的，光彩的
2.participative [pɑ:'tɪsɪpeɪtɪv] a. 參與的
3.lump [lʌmp] v. 把……歸併在一起
4.hard-headed a.頑固的
5.arbitrary [ˈɑ:bɪtrəri] a. 武斷的
6.quota [ˈkwəʊtə] n. 定額，配額
7.suite [swi:t] n.（一批）隨員
8.enlightened [ɪnˈlaɪtnd] a. 開明的
9.disguise [dɪsˈgaɪz] n. 偽裝
10.*cadre [ˈkɑ:də(r)] n. 骨幹隊伍
11.*demeaning [dɪˈmi:nɪŋ] a. 侮辱的，降低身份的
12.*flimsy [ˈflɪmzi] a. 脆弱的，易損壞的
（標*的為超綱詞）
Ⅰ①One by one, the glittering prizes are falling to women. ②General Motors, IBM and PepsiCo are among a couple of dozen giant American companies with female bosses. ③The trend is clear: women now make up more than 50% of university graduates and of new hires by big employers. ④Will this growing cadre of female bosses manage any differently from men? ⑤Forty years ago feminists would have found the very question demeaning. ⑥But today some management scholars argue that women excel in the leadership qualities most valued in modern firms.
翻譯：女性正在接連不斷地取得光彩奪目的成就。包括通用、IBM以及百事等在內的幾十家美國大型公司，其領導均為女性。這種趨勢清晰可見：現如今，在大學畢業生以及受大公司聘用方面，女性人數均佔據了一半以上。數量日益增加的女性領導在管理方式上會與男性有差別嗎？如果是在四十年前，女權主義者會認為這一問題是一種侮辱。但是現在，一些管理界的學者認為，現代企業當中，在最有價值的領導素質方面，女性更勝一籌。
點評：段Ⅰ提出反方觀點：相較於男性，女性更具領導力。首先指出女性正在不斷取得輝煌成就並輔以例證；然後揭示女性在教育以及求職方面上佔據優勢的現象；隨後由現象引出反方觀點：一些管理學者認為女性在領導力方面比男性更優秀。主要邏輯銜接是：①前兩句指出現狀；②第三句以The trend is clear過渡，一方面總結上文現象，另一方面以冒號引出擴展現象；③第四句針對上述現象發出設問，this growing cadre of female bosses回指第二句所述現象。④第五、六句以But為分界線，由古（Forty years ago feminists）引今（today management scholars），表明當前一種觀點：不僅僅是「女性與男性不相上下」的問題，而是「女性領導力更甚於男性」的問題。
Ⅱ①Supporters of this position are fond of quoting two studies by McKinsey, in 2007 and 2008, of large groups of managers in a variety of businesses. ②The consulting firm found that five 「leadership behaviours」 are seen in women more frequently than in men: people-development; setting expectations and rewards; providing role models; giving inspiration; and participative decision-making. ③By contrast, the two that men were found to adopt more often than women sound rather old-fashioned: control and corrective action; and individualistic decision-making.
翻譯：該立場的支持者喜歡引用麥肯錫在2007年和2008年進行的關於各種企業中大批管理層的兩項研究。該諮詢公司發現，有五種「領導力表現」在女性當中更為常見，分別是：注重員工發展；設置預期和獎勵；樹立榜樣；給予鼓勵；參與決策。相比之下，其中有兩項，男性比女性採用的多，並且聽起來也相當過時，即控制和糾正行為；個人主義的決策制定。
點評：段Ⅱ介紹反方觀點的依據：首先指出支撐上述觀點（女性在領導力方面更勝一籌）的依據，即麥肯錫公司的兩項研究；隨後指出其結論：一、女性領導在五個方面比男性更加優秀。二、男性領導僅在兩個方面超越女性，且這兩方面頗為老舊，並無新意。主要邏輯銜接是：①首句以Supporters of this position承上引出支持上文觀點的依據來源；②第二、三句為一個意群，敘述有關研究的兩個結論，其中第二句中the consulting firm指代第一句中的McKinsey；By contrast（相比之下）表明第二、三句為相反對照的關係。
Ⅲ①However, the claim that women make better leaders needs to be weighed against three considerations. ②The first is that lumping women bosses together obscures the huge differences between them. ③There are plenty of female bosses who are as hard-headed as any male. ④After Harriet Green took charge of Thomas Cook, a struggling travel business, she got rid of 2,500 staff and cut senior management posts by one-third. ⑤Jill Abramson, the first female editor of the New York Times, was removed for 「arbitrary decision-making」, a 「failure to consult」 and 「inadequate communication」.
翻譯：然而，女性能成為更佳領導者的斷言仍需權衡，基於以下三點。首先是，將所有女性領導混為一談忽視了她們之間的巨大差別。許多女性領導也和任一男性領導一樣固執己見。哈莉特·格林在接管旅遊業中苦苦掙扎的託馬斯庫克以後便解僱了2，500名員工，削減了三分之一的高管職位。《紐約時報》的首位女主編——吉爾·艾布拉姆遜，因「決策武斷」、「拒絕協商」和「缺乏溝通」而被解僱。
點評：段Ⅲ質疑反方觀點，提出論據一：首先指出上述觀點仍需在三個方面作出思量；隨後指出需要仔細考量的第一點：將所有女性混為一談，忽略了她們之間的差別（並非所有女領導都具有上述五種「領導力表現」）；進而指出該差別的一種體現：很多女領導和男領導一樣固執己見，並以實例佐證。主要邏輯銜接是：①首句為過渡句，以However轉承上文，質疑上述結論的合理性，並開啟下文（第三至五段）對結論的反駁內容。②第二句承接首句，以The first is that...引出需要思考的第一方面。③第三至五句論證第二句內容，其中第三句為總述，第四、五句為並列關係，對第三句觀點female bosses...as hard-headed as any male輔以例證。
Ⅳ①The second consideration is that both male and female managers are perfectly capable of adapting their leadership styles to meet changing circumstances. ②In a 2013 study of 917 managers in Norway—a country that has led the way in female-friendly policies, from board quotas to public child care—Anne Grethe Solberg, a sociologist, concluded that: 「Men and women don’t have different styles of leadership.」
翻譯：第二點是，男性和女性管理者都完全有能力調整自身領導力以應對不斷變化的環境。2013年，在針對挪威（一個從董事會配額到公共兒童保健，都為女性友好政策開路的國家）917位管理者的研究中，社會學家安妮·格雷特·索爾伯格總結到，「男性和女性在領導方式上並沒有什麼不同。」
點評：段Ⅳ提出論據二：首先提出需要思考的第二點內容：男性和女性管理者都能使自己的領導方式適應不斷變化的環境；接著以某社會學家的研究結論例證，強調男性和女性在領導方式上並沒有什麼不同。主要邏輯銜接是：①首句中the second呼應上文the first，引出需要考慮的第二方面。that引導的表語從句闡釋the second consideration的具體內容。②第二句借用研究結論證明首句內容，其中don’t have different styles of leadership與首句中both male and female managers are perfectly capable of adapting their leadership style...相統一。
Ⅴ①The third, and main, problem with the argument that women do a better job in running a company is the lack of solid evidence that putting more women into senior jobs improves a business’s performance. ②Several early studies in this field found that companies with more women in their executive suites and on their boards had better financial outcomes. ③But two studies of public companies in Norway, following legislation requiring them to give at least 40% of board seats to women, found that increasing the number of women had a negative effect on profits.
翻譯：第三點也是最為主要的一點，「女性在經營公司方面更為出色」這一觀點的問題在於缺乏可靠的證據證明讓更多的女性從事高級工作能提升公司的業績。這一領域的幾項早期研究表明，行政層和董事會中具備更多女性的公司，財務狀況更好。但是針對挪威上市公司（它們遵循立法的要求在董事會中給予女性至少40%的席位）的兩項研究發現，增加女性數量對於公司收益有消極影響。
點評：段Ⅴ提出論據三：首先指出需要考慮的第三方面（最為重要的內容）：並無確鑿證據顯示「任命女性作為高管能提高企業業績」；隨後先讓步指出確實存在早期研究認為管理層當中擁有更多女性的公司財政收入更好，接著轉而指出兩項最新研究的結論，即女性人數的增多對於公司收益從總體上來看具有負面影響。主要邏輯銜接是：①首句中The third與上文中the first 和the second形成並列關係；problem with the argument that women do a better job...is the lack of evidence that...（其中the argument that...是對上述反方觀點的重複）引出第三點需要考慮的內容。②第二、三句以先退後進的形式證明首句，其中第二句in this field回指首句「女性任高管的情況下公司的業績研究」這一領域；in their executive suites and on their boards、had better financial outcomes分別呼應首句中的senior jobs、improves a business's performance。③第三句以But轉折引出最新研究成果，從而否定上句內容，指出女性數量的增加對企業經濟收益並無積極作用，句中profits與第二句中financial outcomes相呼應。
Ⅵ①Those arguing that women leaders are different, and better, may have the best of intentions. ②But they are piling flimsy evidence on dubious argument to produce politically correct hokum. ③In some societies such claims risk reinforcing stereotypes about the sort of job that women are 「good for」. ④The only enlightened policy for selecting leaders is to judge people purely on their individual merits. ⑤Anything else is just prejudice in disguise.
翻譯：那些認為女性領導者與眾不同，表現更為出色的人，初衷也許是好的。但是他們將站不住腳的證據堆砌於無把握的論據之上，只是在說一些政治上正確的空話。在一些社會裡，這些觀點會加深人們的固有偏見：即女性更「擅長」某類工作。選擇領導者唯一開明的政策是完全根據其個人價值來作出判斷，基於任何其他的標準都只是帶有偽裝的偏見。
點評：段Ⅵ提出作者自身觀點。首先讓步對「認為女性領導者表現更佳者」的出發點給予一定的肯定。隨後轉而指出其問題：論據站不住腳，只是政治層面上正確的空話；進而指出這種觀點的負面影響：加劇人們的固有偏見。最後提出自身觀點：個人價值才是任命領導的唯一標準，而非性別。主要邏輯銜接是：①前三句總結上文，對持「女性管理者優於男性」這一觀點的人進行評判。其中首句先退而肯定，第二、三句轉而（But）進行批判。第三句such claims指代第一句中的women leaders are different, and better。②第四、五句提出作者自身觀點。其中第四句the only enlightened policy for selecting leaders is to...體現出對「女性更具領導力」這一觀點的否定，同時引出「立」的內容：領導力並非由性別決定。第五句Anything else回應上句the only...policy，表明除了這個唯一標準外，任何標準都是偏見。