Question

. Read the following passage and answer the questions. Wayback in 1990, Fortune magazine guesstimated that there were twenty-five million meetings worldwide on a single day. Five years later, Alan Barker put the figure at fifty million. Apparently in the UK alone four million hours are spent every day on meetings. Thirty years down the line when a click of the mouse connects you with people across the world, one can just imagine where the figures would be now! No one can be sure of these figures, but one thing is certain. There are many committees and many meetings in any organization of any size. In fact, too many. Managers have taken to heart the old proverb, “Two heads are better than one.” They call meetings with notice and without, day in and day out. They ignore another proverb of equal vintage, “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” Pierre Martineau says in this context, “In some organisations there is a pyramid structure, with various subordinates arranged in some kind of rank. Too often their conferences end in nothing, because the low men on the totem poles say nothing, and first lieutenants are wrangling about completely irrelevant subjects. They are not trying to communicate any information but just to put on record that they are smart people. And when they start attacking and defending ideas, they are simply showing brilliance.” Meetings then are a facet of corporate life that needs close scrutiny; you are going to be drawn into them whether you like it or not. i) How does the proverb “Two heads are better than one” relate to meetings?
ii) As per the passage are meetings necessary?
iii) What is meant by ‘meetings are a necessary evil’?
iv) What could be the reason that some people in the meetings remain non participative and some participations are irrelevant?

Answer 1

1. It's quite straightforward, actually. Two people working together have a better chance of solving a problem than one person working alone.

2. As per the passage, meetings are necessary but not to the extent of calling a meeting for meeting's sake.

3. Meetings are a facet of corporate life that needs close scrutiny, so you are going to be drawn into them whether you like it or not.

4. Some people in the meetings remain non participative because of their low status in a corporate hierarchy, and some participations are irrelevant because they don't try to communicate any information but just to put on record that they are smart people.

Объяснение: