Question Description
Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions which follow.Although broad generalization always oversimplify complex realities, we find numerous truths in the contrast between hierarchical, industrial manufacturing firms that dominated most of the twentieth century and today's service-based and knowledge-sensitive organisations. When industry meant repeatedly carrying out standard, well-defined tasks and workers were seen metaphorically (and sometimes literally) as part of a machine, progress could still be made when the social networks and relationships of individual employees were ignored or discouraged. In fact, those firms strongly depended on social capital and sometimes suffered from lack of it. Without some level of trust, respect, and generalised reciprocity, coordinated work of any kind is hard to accomplish. Still, as Henry Ford has commented, a certain rough logic lies behind treating people like cogs in a machine when you only expect and want them to do machine-like work.But very little of the work of today's knowledge firm is repetitive or mechanical. It requires responsiveness, inventiveness, collaboration and attention. Judgement, persuasiveness, shared decisions, the pooling of knowledge, and the creative sparks people strike off one another depend on engagement with the work and one another, on the commitment that makes one genuinely a member of an organisation rather than simply an "employee". Although we ourselves sometimes fall into the trap of talking about "employers" and "employees" - the users and the used - those terms really belong to the industrial-age modal and are inappropriate to the kind of work and working relationships we consider here. Today's most economically productive work is largely voluntary, in the sense that doing it well calls for a willing engagement of the whole self in the task. "Going through the motions" is insufficient when the motions are not prescribed but change as you go along. In our view, the firm is neither a machine with each cog firmly in place performing its clearly defined task nor an unorganized (or self-organising) flock of opportunistic entrepreneurs pursuing their individual destinies. It is - it should be - a social organisation of people willingly engaged in a joint enterprise.Q. The central idea of the passage relates toa)the key difference between industrial and knowledge-intensive firmsb)the key difference between an "employee" and a "member" in an organisationc)"Mechanical" vs. "Voluntary" organisationsd)importance of social capital in creating engaged organisationse)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.