Successful workplaces are usually characterised by good communication. Bosses provide a clear sense of where they want the firm to go; employees feel able to voice disagreements; colleagues share information rather than hoarding it. But being a good communicator is too often conflated with one particular skill： speaking persuasively.

In a paper published in 2015， Kyle Brink of Western Michigan University and Robert Costigan of St John Fisher College found that 76% of undergraduate business degrees in America had a learning goal for presentation skills， but only 11% had a goal related to listening. Business students were being schooled to give TED talks rather than have conversations. That may have costs.

Recent research by Beau Sievers of Stanford University and his co-authors asked groups of MBA students to discuss the meaning of ambiguous film clips. The presence of people perceived to be of high status seemed to impede consensus（共識）： these folk spoke more and were readier to reject the explanations of others. Groups that reached consensus were more likely to have a different character in them： people who were well-connected but not dominant， who asked lots of questions and who encouraged interaction. They made everything align—even the neural activity of their groups.

Mr Duhigg looks at how some people forge stronger connections with others and at the techniques for having better conversations. His canvas ranges more widely than the workplace but some of its lessons are applicable there.

Mr Duhigg describes an approach called “l(fā)ooping for understanding”， in which people ask questions and then repeatedly distil their understanding of what they have heard back to their interlocutor.

Polarised beliefs of this sort are rare inside firms. Looping techniques still have their place： when there are long-running conflicts between individual employees， say， or in negotiations and mediation processes.

Mr Duhigg’s advice can seem a useful reminder. Asking questions， not cutting people off， pausing to digest what someone has said rather than pouncing on breaks in a discussion to make your own point. And in plenty of organisations they would still represent good progress.

（材料來自The Economist，有刪改）

1. What does the underlined word “hoarding” in paragraph 1 probably mean？

A. Giving away. B. Storing up.

C. Using up. D. Taking away.

2.What can be learnt about the paper published in 2015？

A. Only one person’s finding is included in it.

B. Most business students needn’t grasp presentation skills.

C. Over 11% business students had a goal related to listening.

D. Business students attach great importance to TED talks.

3. What is the main idea of the third paragraph？

A. The purpose of the research.

B. The process of the research.

C. The finding of the research.

D. The meaning of the research.

4. What is the author’s attitude towards Mr. Duhigg’s approach？

A. Approving. B. Objective.

C. Doubtful. D. Unknown.

1.B。解析：詞義猜測題。材料第一段畫線詞所在的句子的大意為“老板清楚地知道他們希望公司走向何方；員工覺得能夠表達不同意見；同事們分享信息而不是囤積信息”。 由此可知，“hoarding”應有“囤積、儲存”之意。B選項“正在存儲”與材料內(nèi)容相符，故選B。

2.D。解析：推理判斷題。材料第二段的第二句提到“商學院的學生被要求做TED演講，而不是進行對話”，D選項“商科學生非常重視TED演講”與材料內(nèi)容相符，故選D。

3.C。解析：主旨大意題。材料第三段共有四句話，第一句介紹了所做的是何種研究，后三句分別講述了研究的不同發(fā)現(xiàn)。由此可知，這段材料的主旨是研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)。C選項“研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)”與材料內(nèi)容相符，故選C。

4. A。解析：觀點態(tài)度題。材料倒數(shù)第二段提到“循環(huán)技術(shù)仍然有自己的一席之地：比如當個別員工之間存在長期沖突時，或者在談判和調(diào)解過程中時”。由此可見，作者對Duhigg先生的循環(huán)技術(shù)持肯定態(tài)度，故選A。