Questões de Concurso Comentadas para if-pa
Foram encontradas 1.683 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Texto 04
Gottman, John. The Relationship Cure. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Strengthening Relationships at Work
There is a number of things managers can do to strengthen relationships with workers. Strengthening connections with workers can lead to a win-win situation, in that workers may feel respected and valued, and can become much more engaged and productive in their work. And, managers may find that it is much easier to deal with a worker’s negative emotions or psychological health struggles when the foundation of their relationship with the worker is strong.
We can effectively build connections with workers by verbally or nonverbally seeking contact with them (i.e., making what psychologist Dr. John Gottman calls “connection bids”). A connection bid is an attempt to create connections between two people, and is essential for building, maintaining and improving relationships. A connection bid can be anything that we do to seek contact with another person:
- Asking for information: e.g., asking a worker how to solve a work problem. “Would you mind helping me with interpreting this spreadsheet? I’m struggling to get my head around the numbers.”
- Showing interest: e.g., asking workers about their hobbies or recent holidays. “Have you been doing any hiking lately?”
- Expressing affirmation and approval: e.g., complimenting a worker on his latest accomplishment. “Your presentation yesterday was excellent!”
- Expressing caring or support: e.g., demonstrating concern about a worker’s health condition. “Your cough sounds awful. You should think about going home to recover.”
- Offering assistance: e.g., offering support to a worker who is overloaded with tasks. “Would you like me to ask Jocelyn to help you with that project?”
- Making a humorous comment: e.g., lighthearted joking with a worker about a mistake you made. “Sometimes the hurrier I go, the behinder I get!”
- Sending non-verbal signals: e.g., a smile, a wink, a wave, a pat on the back or a thumbs up.
[…]
The way we respond to workers has a sizable impact on the nature of the relationships that result. If we repeatedly turn against or turn away from workers, they may eventually stop reaching out. On the contrary, if we turn toward a person as often as we can, the relationship can be strengthened and become more positive and supportive.
(Disponível em: www.workplacestrategiesformentalhealth.com/mmhm)
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Texto 02
Standard Englishes and World Englishes: Living with a Polymorph Business Language
By Jeanette Gilsdorf
Many who teach business communication observe gradual changes in Standard English. As do other languages, English changes through contact with other languages and through several other wellunderstood avenues of language evolution, such as compounding, adding affixes, functional shift, coinage, and so on. As the third millennium begins, new factors are converging to influence Standard English: U.S. work environments are becoming more richly intercultural, newcomers to the United States are increasing their fluency in English, and international business is using English increasingly as a global language of business. Throughout these remarks, my perspective is that of a native-born Anglo-American speaker of English. Speakers of other Englishes will have different but comparable perspectives.
Helping my English as Second Language (L2) students gradually master English, I’ve seen my practical understanding of L2 learning grow, along with my respect for the major language task these students have taken on. I’ve also sensed Americans’ unmerited good luck that English has become the language of international business. Yet the internationality of English is to us a mixed blessing because of our presumptions about what comes with it. As Dennett says, “English may be the language of the global village but the villagers are far from agreement on what is good use of the language” (1992, p. 13). Many communicators mistakenly assume a commonality of understanding when both speakers use the same English words. We know that even two speakers born to the same language experience only approximate commonality of meaning; yet we routinely forget to compensate for that fact and end up with cases of bypassing. Internationally, the commonality of understanding can be far more sketchy, and the contextual issues much more complex, than most of us realize.
A truism says that staying with good Standard English will hold problems to a minimum. But what is Standard English, and what is the place of Standard English in teaching business communication in contexts that are more and more international? How, as teachers, do we make our peace with the multiple, competing standards and values affecting what is “acceptable English”? These questions trouble us in part because business persons approve of others’ use of English—or disparage it— depending on their view of what English is and what it’s supposed to be used for. Most U.S. business persons say that they expect people who work for them to be highly competent in Standard English. It seems a simple issue to these business persons. To teachers it is far from simple.
[…]
(Disponível em http://web.csulb.edu/~gilsdorf/st%20eng%20world%20eng%20jbc.htm / Journal of Business Communication, volume 39, number 3, July 2002, pages 364-378).
Conheça nossos planos