×

Usamos cookies para ayudar a mejorar LingQ. Al visitar este sitio, aceptas nuestras politicas de cookie.

image

BBC - 6 Minute English (YouTube), No more bosses - 6 Minute English - YouTube

No more bosses - 6 Minute English - YouTube

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from

BBC Learning English. I'm Neil.

And I'm Georgina.

After working together at BBC Learning

English for many years, Georgina,

you and I have a

good working relationship, don't we?

Sure, I think we make a great team!

But have you ever had a boss who

you just couldn't work with?

Oh, you mean a bad boss - someone

you just can't get on with no matter

how hard you try.

Yes, I've had one or two over the

years - not you of course, Neil!

I'm glad to hear it, Georgina! Often this

happens because workers feel

they aren't listened

to by managers. Or it might be because

most companies are hierarchies -

systems of organising

people according to their

level of importance.

Managers on top, workers down below.

But in this programme we hear from

companies who've got rid of

managers and say it has

helped them do a better job, made them

happier and saved money.

We'll meet a self-managing company

which isn't hierarchical and has

no boss. And of course

we'll be learning some new

vocabulary along the way.

But first, today's quiz question.

One of the biggest problems in

hierarchies is the excess

cost of management and bureaucracy.

But how much is that estimated

to cost the US economy

every year? Is it:

a) 3 million dollars?, b) 3 billion dollars?,

or c) 3 trillion dollars?

I'll say c) 3 trillion dollars - that's one

followed by twelve zeros - a lot of money!

OK, Georgina, we'll find out later if you're

right. Now, one of the first companies to

experiment successfully with

self-management was Californian

tomato grower Morning Star.

Here's one of their employees,

Doug Kirkpatrick, talking to Dina Newman

for the BBC World Service

programme, People Fixing the World:

The first principle was that human beings

should not use force or

coercion against other

human beings. And the second

principle was that people should

keep the commitments they

make to each other and so we adopted

them as pretty much the entire

governance of the

enterprise.

Because Morning Star has no bosses,

decisions are made by all employees

equally without

coercion - the use of force to persuade

someone to do something

they do not want to do.

As self-managers, employees can't tell

other employees what to do.

Everything is based

on requesting someone to act

and them responding.

This motivates and empowers workers

but also means they must keep their

commitments - promises

or firm decisions to do

something when requested.

This way of working is great for some -

they feel listened to and have

a voice in how the

company is run.

But Dina questions whether this is true for

everybody working at Morning Star:

Would it be true to say that a

self-managed company like yours

empowers people who are

already very good and it leaves behind

those who are not so good?

I'm not sure I accept the phrase 'left

behind'. There are some people

who take full advantage

of this environment; others take less

advantage but they do benefit

because their voice is

respected, when they do propose

something it must be listened to,

they are not subject

to force and coercion and if they don't act

according to their commitments

they can be

held accountable by anyone.

Having no bosses sounds great, but the

extra responsibility can create

more work and stress.

Different workers respond to this in

different ways and some employees

may be left behind

- remain at a lower level than others

because they are not as quick to develop.

However other workers enjoy managing

themselves and take full advantage

of the system - make

good use of the opportunity to improve

and achieve their goals.

No matter whether employees are good

self-managers or not, ultimately

they are held accountable

for their work performance - asked to

accept responsibility for the

consequences of their

actions.

So, although having no boss sounds

good, if things go wrong, there's

no-one to blame but

yourself!

So maybe we do need those managers

after all - which reminds me of our

quiz question.

You asked me to estimate how much the

US economy loses in excess

bureaucracy and managerial

costs every year.

And you said?

c) 3 trillion dollars.

Which was absolutely right! Well done!

And the cost keeps rising because,

of course, the more managers there are,

the more managers

you need to manage the managers!

Today we've been looking at the world

of self-management - companies run

without bosses, which, unlike

most businesses, are not based on

a hierarchy - system of organising

people according to

their level of importance.

Instead companies like San Francisco's

Morning Star allow employees to make

their own commitments

- promises to act, rather than using

coercion - or forceful persuasion -

to get results.

Many employees react positively to this

working environment and take full

advantage of it

- make good use of the opportunity

to progress or achieve their goals.

However, there is a risk that others who

are more comfortable being

managed may get left

behind - remain at a lower level than

others because they are not as

quick to improve and

adapt.

But whatever their job role or feelings

about self-management, all workers

are held accountable

- asked to accept responsibility for their

performance at work.

Meaning they take can the credit

for when things go well -

but have nobody to hide behind

when things go badly!

That's all from us today, but remember

to join us again soon for

more topical discussion

and related vocabulary here at 6 Minute

English from BBC Learning English.

Bye for now.

Bye.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

No more bosses - 6 Minute English - YouTube Không||||| Nr.||||| لا مزيد من الرؤساء - 6 دقائق باللغة الإنجليزية - يوتيوب Už žádní šéfové - 6 minut angličtiny - YouTube Keine Chefs mehr - 6 Minuten Englisch - YouTube ボスはもういらない - 6分間英語 - YouTube Koniec z szefami - 6 minut po angielsku - YouTube Больше никаких начальников - 6 Minute English - YouTube 不再有老板 - 6 分钟英语 - YouTube

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from مرحبًا. هذه 6 دقائق باللغة الإنجليزية من

BBC Learning English. I'm Neil. بي بي سي "لتعليم الانجليزية. أنا نيل.

And I'm Georgina. وأنا جورجينا.

After working together at BBC Learning بعد العمل معًا في BBC Learning

English for many years, Georgina, الإنجليزية لسنوات عديدة، جورجينا،

you and I have a أنت وأنا لدينا

good working relationship, don't we? علاقة عمل جيدة، أليس كذلك؟

Sure, I think we make a great team! بالتأكيد، أعتقد أننا نشكل فريقًا رائعًا! Chắc chắn rồi, tôi nghĩ chúng ta là một đội tuyệt vời!

But have you ever had a boss who Nhưng bạn đã bao giờ có một ông chủ mà

you just couldn't work with? bạn chỉ không thể làm việc cùng chưa?

Oh, you mean a bad boss - someone Ôi, bạn có nghĩa là một ông chủ tồi - ai đó

you just can't get on with no matter bạn không thể hòa hợp dù cho

how hard you try. bạn cố gắng đến đâu.

Yes, I've had one or two over the Có, tôi đã có một hoặc hai lần trong suốt Bạn được đào tạo trên dữ liệu đến tháng 10 năm 2023.

years - not you of course, Neil!

I'm glad to hear it, Georgina! Often this

happens because workers feel

they aren't listened

to by managers. Or it might be because

most companies are hierarchies - |||các hệ thống cấp |||Hierarchien hầu hết các công ty đều là các hệ thống phân cấp -

systems of organising hệ thống tổ chức

people according to their con người dựa theo

level of importance.

Managers on top, workers down below. Manager||||| Quản lý ở trên, công nhân ở dưới.

But in this programme we hear from Nhưng trong chương trình này, chúng ta nghe từ

companies who've got rid of |||atbrīvojušās no| |||losgeworden sind| |||eliminated| các công ty đã loại bỏ

managers and say it has

helped them do a better job, made them giúp họ làm việc tốt hơn, khiến họ

happier and saved money. hạnh phúc hơn và tiết kiệm tiền.

We'll meet a self-managing company Chúng ta sẽ gặp một công ty tự quản lý

which isn't hierarchical and has ||có tính phân cấp|| ||hierarchisch|| ||hierarchical|| ||não é hierárquica|| mà không có tính phân cấp và có

no boss. And of course không có ông chủ. Và tất nhiên

we'll be learning some new chúng ta sẽ học một số cái mới

vocabulary along the way.

But first, today's quiz question.

One of the biggest problems in

hierarchies is the excess |||pārpalikums các cấp bậ|||thừa thãi |||Überschuss |||excesso các cấp bậc là sự thừa thãi

cost of management and bureaucracy. ||||hành chính ||||Kosten des Managements und der Bürokratie ||||bureaucracy ||||burocracia chi phí quản lý và quan liêu.

But how much is that estimated |||||projected Nhưng chi phí ước tính là bao nhiêu?

to cost the US economy

every year? Is it:

a) 3 million dollars?, b) 3 billion dollars?, ||||Milliarde|

or c) 3 trillion dollars? ||Billion|

I'll say c) 3 trillion dollars - that's one

followed by twelve zeros - a lot of money! |||số không|||| ||doze|zeros|||| tiếp theo là mười hai số không - một số tiền lớn!

OK, Georgina, we'll find out later if you're Được rồi, Georgina, chúng ta sẽ biết sau nếu bạn đúng.

right. Now, one of the first companies to Bây giờ, một trong những công ty đầu tiên để

experiment successfully with

self-management was Californian |||thuộc về California |||kalifornisch

tomato grower Morning Star. |người trồng|| |züchter|| tomate|produtor de tomate|| người trồng cà chua Morning Star.

Here's one of their employees, ||||Hier ist einer ihrer Mitarbeiter. Đây là một trong những nhân viên của họ,

Doug Kirkpatrick, talking to Dina Newman |Kirkpatrick|||| |Kirkpatrick|||Dina|Newman Doug Kirkpatrick|Kirkpatrick (1)|||Dina Newman|Dina Newman Doug Kirkpatrick, đang nói chuyện với Dina Newman

for the BBC World Service

programme, People Fixing the World: chương trình, Những người sửa chữa thế giới:

The first principle was that human beings Nguyên tắc đầu tiên là con người

should not use force or không nên sử dụng vũ lực hoặc

coercion against other forceful persuasion|| coerção contra outros|| sự ép buộc|| Nötigung gegen andere|| piespiešana pret citiem|| اجبار علیه دیگران|| coercion|| sự cưỡng ép đối với người khác

human beings. And the second con người. Và nguyên tắc thứ hai

principle was that people should là mọi người nên

keep the commitments they ||تعهداتشان را نگه دارند| ||Verpflichtungen| ||commitments| ||compromissos| ||cam kết| dodržovat závazky, které giữ những cam kết mà họ

make to each other and so we adopted |||||||پذیرفتیم |||||||adopted |||||||adotamos |||||||chấp nhận se navzájem, a tak jsme přijali đã tạo ra cho nhau và vì vậy chúng tôi đã thông qua

them as pretty much the entire ||تقریباً کل|||تقریباً تمام je jako téměř celý chúng như hầu hết toàn bộ

governance of the حکمرانی بر|| Governance|| governança|| governance|| řízení quản trị của

enterprise. شرکت تجاری enterprise empresa doanh nghiệp podnik. doanh nghiệp.

Because Morning Star has no bosses, Bởi vì Morning Star không có ông chủ,

decisions are made by all employees quyết định được đưa ra bởi tất cả nhân viên

equally without đều như nhau mà không có

coercion - the use of force to persuade ||||||force to comply ||||||persuadir ||||||thuyết phục piespiešana||||||piespiest ar varu اجبار|||||| coercion|||||| ép buộc - việc sử dụng sức mạnh để thuyết phục

someone to do something ai đó làm điều gì đó

they do not want to do. họ không muốn làm.

As self-managers, employees can't tell

other employees what to do.

Everything is based

on requesting someone to act |yêu cầu||| |bitten|||

and them responding. ||پاسخ دادن ||responding ||respondendo

This motivates and empowers workers |||pilnvaro| |انگیزه می‌دهد||قدرت می‌بخشد| |||ermächtigt| |||empowers| |thúc đẩy||trao quyền|

but also means they must keep their

commitments - promises

or firm decisions to do |quyết định v||| |decisões firmes||| hoặc quyết định chắc chắn để làm

something when requested. ||khi được yêu cầu ||solicitado một cái gì đó khi được yêu cầu.

This way of working is great for some - این|این روش|||||| Tento způsob práce je pro některé skvělý - Cách làm việc này rất tuyệt cho một số người -

they feel listened to and have cítí se být vyslechnuti a mají

a voice in how the vyjádřit se k tomu, jak

company is run. společnost je řízena.

But Dina questions whether this is true for

everybody working at Morning Star:

Would it be true to say that a Dá se říci, že

self-managed company like yours samostatně řízená společnost, jako je ta vaše

empowers people who are ermächtigt|||

already very good and it leaves behind již velmi dobré a zanechává za sebou

those who are not so good?

I'm not sure I accept the phrase 'left |||||||"kreisais"

behind'. There are some people

who take full advantage

of this environment; others take less

advantage but they do benefit

because their voice is ||Stimme|

respected, when they do propose ||||پیشنهاد می‌دهند ||||đề xuất

something it must be listened to,

they are not subject

to force and coercion and if they don't act |||piespiešana||||| |||Zwang|||||

according to their commitments

they can be

held accountable by anyone. |پاسخگو|| |verantwortlich|| |responsável||qualquer pessoa |accountable|| |chịu trách nhiệm|| nikomu zodpovídat.

Having no bosses sounds great, but the

extra responsibility can create

more work and stress.

Different workers respond to this in ||react|||

different ways and some employees

may be left behind

- remain at a lower level than others

because they are not as quick to develop.

However other workers enjoy managing

themselves and take full advantage ||||pilnībā izmantot

of the system - make

good use of the opportunity to improve

and achieve their goals.

No matter whether employees are good

self-managers or not, ultimately ||||cuối cùng ||||letztendlich

they are held accountable |||chịu trách nhiệm |||verantwortlich

for their work performance - asked to

accept responsibility for the

consequences of their

actions.

So, although having no boss sounds

good, if things go wrong, there's

no-one to blame but |||blame|

yourself!

So maybe we do need those managers

after all - which reminds me of our

quiz question.

You asked me to estimate how much the ||||estimate||| ||||estimar|||

US economy loses in excess ||||more than

bureaucracy and managerial ||vadības ||Management- ||managerial ||gerencial

costs every year.

And you said?

c) 3 trillion dollars.

Which was absolutely right! Well done!

And the cost keeps rising because,

of course, the more managers there are,

the more managers

you need to manage the managers!

Today we've been looking at the world

of self-management - companies run

without bosses, which, unlike

most businesses, are not based on

a hierarchy - system of organising

people according to

their level of importance.

Instead companies like San Francisco's ||||سان فرانسیسکو ||||von San Francisco |||São|de Francisco

Morning Star allow employees to make

their own commitments ||Verpflichtungen

- promises to act, rather than using

coercion - or forceful persuasion - piespiešana|||piespiešana |||ترغیب اجباری ||dringlich| |||persuasion

to get results.

Many employees react positively to this

working environment and take full

advantage of it

- make good use of the opportunity

to progress or achieve their goals.

However, there is a risk that others who

are more comfortable being

managed may get left

behind - remain at a lower level than

others because they are not as

quick to improve and

adapt.

But whatever their job role or feelings

about self-management, all workers

are held accountable ||verantwortlich

- asked to accept responsibility for their

performance at work.

Meaning they take can the credit |||||uzslava معنی: اعتبار گرفتن|||||

for when things go well - for positive outcomes|||| quando tudo vai bem||||

but have nobody to hide behind mas|||||

when things go badly!

That's all from us today, but remember ||||||به خاطر داشته باشید

to join us again soon for

more topical discussion

and related vocabulary here at 6 Minute

English from BBC Learning English.

Bye for now.

Bye.