题目内容
(1) "I don’t know any successful women who haven’t had a powerful sponsor in their organization to give them their first big break," says Avivah Wittenberg-Cox, the boss of 20-first, a consultancy that helps companies put more women into senior jobs. That sentiment is echoed by many people who work in this field. But why do women need so much help Many men who climb the corporate ladder have sponsors, too. Indeed, they find it easier than women to persuade a senior colleague to sponsor them. But women need help more because they are generally more reluctant to promote themselves. They are also less likely to build up useful networks of contacts. (2) That may help to explain why women, although they now enter white-collar jobs in much the same numbers as men in many countries, still find it so hard to get anywhere near the executive suite. A new report, "Sponsor Effect: UK", produced by the Centre for Talent Innovation (CTI), a New York think-tank, offers a detailed picture of the female talent pipeline in Britain, based on a survey of about 2,500 graduate employees, mostly of large companies. (3) It notes that although women in Britain account for 57% of new recruits to white-collar jobs, they make up just 17% of executive directors and a mere 4% of chief executives of the FTSE’s 100 biggest companies. It is not that the women lack ambition, says the report. No less than 79% of senior women in the sample said they aspired to a top job and 91% were keen to be promoted. (4) Nor, say the authors, are they necessarily held back by family responsibilities: nearly two in five of those aged 40 or over had no children. Three in five of the over-40s did have children, and talented women who quit work to raise kids are not included in the sample. Still, the survey’s main finding is striking. (5) Only 16% of the sample had sponsors, defined as people several levels above them who give them career advice, introduce them to contacts and help them get promotions. Having a sponsor dramatically improves a woman’s career prospects.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
At the start of the year, The Independent on Sunday argued that there were three over-whelming reasons why Iraq should not be invaded: there was no proof that Saddam posed an imminent threat; Iraq would be even more trustable as a result of its liberation; and a conflict would increase the threat posed by terrorists. (1) What we did not know was that Tony Blair had received intelligence and advice that raised the very same points. Last week’s report from the Intelligence and Security Committee included the revelation that some of the intelligence had warned that a war against Iraq risked an increased threat of terrorism. Why did Mr. Blair not make this evidence available to the public in the way that so much of the alarmist intelligence on Saddam’s weapons was published (2) Why did he choose to ignore the intelligence and argue instead that the war was necessary, precisely because of the threat posed by international terrorism There have been two parliamentary investigations into this war and the Hutton inquiry reopens tomorrow. (3) In their different ways they have been illuminating, but none of them has addressed the main issues relating to the war. The Foreign Affairs Committee had the scope to range widely, but chose to become entangled in the dispute between the Government and the BBC. The Intelligence Committee reached the conclusion that the Government’s file on Saddam’s weapons was not mixed up, but failed to explain why the intelligence was so hopelessly wrong. The Hutton inquiry is investigating the death of Dr. David Kelly, a personal tragedy of marginal relevance to the war against Iraq. Tony Blair has still to come under close examination about his conduct in the building-up to war. Instead, the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, is being fingered as if he were master-minding the war behind everyone’s backs from the Ministry of Defence. Mr. Hoon is not a minister who dares to think without consulting Downing Street first. At all times he would have been dancing to Downing Street’s tunes. Mr. Blair would be wrong to assume that he can draw a line under all of this by making Mr. Hoon the fall-guy. (4) It was Mr. Blair who decided to take Britain to war, and a Cabinet of largely skeptical ministers that backed him. It was Mr. Blair who told MPs that unless Saddam was removed, terrorists would pose a greater global threat—even though he had received intelligence that suggested a war would lead to an increase in terrorism. Parliament should be the forum in which the Prime Minister is called more fully to account, but lain Duncan Smith’s support for the war has neutered an already inept opposition. (5) In the absence of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is left to newspapers like this one to keep asking the most important questions until the Prime Minister answers them.
Gandhi’s pacifism can be separated to some extent from his other teachings. (1) Its motive was religious, but he claimed also for it that it was a definitive technique, a method, capable of producing desired political results. Gandhi’s attitude was not that of most Western pacifists. Satyagraha, (2) the method Gandhi proposed and practiced, first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred. It entailed such things as civil disobedience, strikes, lying down in front of Railway trains, enduring police charges without running away and without hitting back, and the like. Gandhi objected to "passive resistance" as a translation of Satyagraha: in Gujarati, it seems, the word means "firmness in the truth". (3) In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of 1914-1918. Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. Since his whole political life centered round a struggle for national independence, he could not and, (4) indeed, he did not take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews Are you prepared to see them exterminated If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war" (5) I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the "you’re another" type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer’s Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.\
Congress is now deliberating legislative and budgetary changes that would dramatically redefine the nation’s responsibilities for the least advantaged. Debate about these responsibilities should be welcomed and new ideas given careful consideration. It is not written in stone or in the Constitution that the federal government needs to take care of the poor. (1) Current programs are widely viewed as deficient, in large part because they are perceived as encouraging dependency and the dissolution of the family. In some areas, the federal role has become too intrusive. And without new taxes, money is in short supply. Returning responsibility to the states with a tie-off grant from the federal government to ease the transition is seen by many as the solution. In my own view, arguments that current proposals are the best means of dealing with these problems are somewhat disingenuous. (2) As many have argued, these proposals could more accurately be described as a Trojan horse designed to dismantle the welfare state that has existed for the past 60 years. If the objective is to encourage work and marriage, these reforms send the right signals but may disappoint in practice. If the objective is to provide states with greater flexibility, the solution is a streamlined waiver process and other modest reforms. (3) States already have a great deal of flexibility and could readily be given more within a framework that establishes minimum protections for the poor and accountability for the public’s money. If the objective is to reduce the deficit, this could be achieved without cutting so deeply into programs that help the most vulnerable. The poorest 20 percent of the population now receives roughly 4 percent of all income in the United States. Any deficit reduction package that asks them to pay more than 4 percent of the total burden is arguably unfair. Yet chances are that they will end up paying far more than this. Deficit reduction is a worthy goal, but numerous tax subsidies and entitlement programs could be tapped before low-income programs were cut. (4) As it is, safety-net programs are being restructured in ways that not only yield federal savings but also promise less state effort as well. Finally, if the objective is to reduce poverty without encouraging dependency, the most important thing that government can do is to assist low-income working families with such measures as the EITC, child care, subsidized health insurance, and adjustments in the minimum wage. (5) If personal commitments to work and family are the surest way out of poverty, as they have been in the past, then these work-oriented measures are the best way to keep those who play by the rules from falling further behind.
牙间刷是
微信支付 
支付宝支付