Some cooperative executives perceive that new employees in companies would lack basic social skills. What could be the reasons behind it? I believe that the recruitment mechanism and fierce competition in the workplace are the culprits.
Firstly, most preexisting interviews fail to identify appropriate social abilities of a potential employee. This two-person interview often concentrates on finding applicants’ professional capabilities rather than communicative competencies. Moreover, old working experiences tend to be a pivotal criterion of social abilities in this interview. Thus some interviewers would fake these experiences, resulting in the wrong decision of employers.

Also, sharp competition in the workplace would lead to a lack of teamwork environment. With the high-speed development of society, people are increasingly informed of higher education, obtaining job-related skills. Therefore, qualified workers would soar in the workplace, which makes the promotion much tougher than ever. To stand out, new workers have no choice but to struggle for showing-off opportunities. Undeniably contradictions would appear under such a working atmosphere.

Cooperative managers could upgrade the interview protocols to mitigate the problem. For instance, a panel could identify applicants’ communicative competencies. Facing the same problem, everyone might have their personal view. Interviewees could see problem-solving skills and teamwork skills of participants clearly when they tackle the opponent ideas. Additionally, a collaborative working atmosphere could reverse the situation as well. Experienced workers should cultivate new employers, whose results should tie with salaries. As for new ones, comments of partners should be a significant standard of their wages.

To summarize, the recruitment system could be blamed for this phenomenon. However, the business could revolutionize their interview procedure and build a cooperate working atmosphere to make a difference.

Some companies perceive that newcomers would have a shortage of basic social skills.  I believe that the recruitment mechanism and fierce competition in the workplace are the culprits.

For starters,  de facto, traditional type of interview might not identify social abilities easily. The interview only involving two people concentrates more on the specialized knowledge of applicants instead of how they collaborate with others. Besides, as this kind of skills could only be seen by old working experiences in one-to-one interview, some people might beautify their CVs using fake stories to satisfy interviewers. While this behavior would help them leave a better impression, recruiters would find it difficult to make a decision.

Furthermore, sharp competition in the workplace would bring inevitable disputes. With an increasing number of qualified workers in companies, the promotion become harder than ever. To get the opportunity for personal progression, new employers would rather show off their working ability to stand out instead of becoming an excellent team player.

To mitigate the problem, businesses should upgrade interview protocols. For example, a panel interview could identify applicants’ teamwork abilities. Every participant is likely to have a disparate view facing a question, so disputes would be unavoidable during the interview. Tackling opponent opinions would be an optimun way to demonstrate teamwork skills and problem-solving skills. Moreover, a cooperative working atmosphere could reverse this situation as well. Experienced workers should shoulder the responsability to cultivate newcomers, whose results could tie with the salaries. As for new workers, they themselves should learn to fit into the whole team. Otherwise, they would be fired.

To summarize, the recruitment system could be blamed for of this phenomenon. However, the business could revolutionize their interview pattern to make a difference.

Freshmen in companies are more likely to lack interpersonal skills. I believe that the recruitment mechanism and fierce competition are the culprits.

For starters, employers cannot identify the social abilities easily through the traditional type of interview. The one-to-one pattern concentrates more on the specialized knowledge of appliances. Thus their teamwork skills cannot be judged directly. Besides, some people might invent their social experiences to meet the demands of interviewers. While this action would help them leave a better impression, recruiters would find it difficult to make the best decision.

Furthermore, the sharp competition in the workplace would pose more individualism. As an increasing number of qualified workers enter the workplace, the promotion has gotten harder and harder. Therefore, to get the opportunity for personal progression, when doing group work, freshmen would rather try to stand out instead of fitting into the whole team.

To deal with the problem, in my opinion, businesses should upgrade the interview pattern. For example, a group interview could be a better way to identify their abilities. Every participant would have a disparate view in front of the same question, which tends to trigger disputes during the interview. In this case, employers’ problem-solving skills and teamwork skills could be seen clearly when they tackle the opponent opinions. Besides, companies should build a cooperative working atmosphere. Experienced workers have the responsibility to cultivate freshmen, which could be tied with the salaries.

To summarize, the recruitment system could be the culprit of this phenomenon. If the business could revolutionize their interview pattern, then it would be better.

Freshmen in companies are more likely to lack interpersonal skills. It seems that the recruitment mechanism and highly fierce competition need to be blamed.

For starters, social abilities could not be identified easily through the traditional type of interview. The one-to-one pattern concentrates more on the specialized knowledge rather than the teamwork skills of appliances. Besides, some people might invent their experiences to cater to the demands of interviewers. While this action would help them leave a better impression, it would be tough for recruiters to understand their real abilities.

Furthermore, the sharp competition in the workplace would lead to more individualism. An increasing number of qualified workers enter the workplace, which renders the promotion harder and harder. Thus when doing group work, freshmen would rather try to stand out instead of fitting into the whole team. Undeniably it is more likely to beget contradiction among workers.

To deal with the problem, I believe that businesses should upgrade the interview pattern. Widely accepted, it is easier to perceive the all-round capacity of appliances during a group interview. This pattern simulates real working environment. Appliances should not only show their perspectives but also address disparate views of their partners. In this way, their problem-solving and teamwork skills are able to be understood theroughly through the reaction in front of disputes. Therefore, the group interview might be an optimum way to recruit an appropriate employer.

To summarize, the recruitment system could be the culprit of this phenomenon. If the business could revolutionize their interview pattern, then it would be better.

People have different views about whether the government should raise the tax for fast food or not. I support the view that a higher tax could mitigate the problems caused by fast food.

On the one hand, people need an outside force to dent their appetite for an unhealthy diet. For starters, they would have little self-control when exposing to temptations. With fast food increasingly involving in our life, almost every citizen has tried them despite being aware of the harm. Furthermore, today citizens usually work overtime to earn more money, so they would have less time to do the home cooking. More and more people resort to convenience food or get a takeaway. Widely accepted, the higher the price of fast food is, the fewer people could afford it. Thus an outside force could help them cut down reliance on this tasty but harmful food.

Also, it should be the government’s responsibility to resist excessive junk food eating. If a growing number of citizens have medical conditions, the burdens of the healthcare services system will zoom over. The government would have to budget a multitude of funds towards the healthcare system. Additionally, other vital fields, such as education and infrastructure construction, also need huge investments. A higher tax of fast food could not only increase the revenue but also cost-effectively mitigate the problem.

To summarize, I believe that it would be a practical way to raise the tax for fast food. This measure could enormously reduce people’s dependence on it.

People have different views about whether the government should raise the tax for fast food or not. I believe that resisting eating fast food by providing a higher tax works.

On the one hand, people need some outside force to dent their appetite for keeping an unhealthy diet. For starters, they would have little self-control when exposing to temptations. With fast food increasingly involving in our daily life, it goes without saying that almost every citizen has tried them despite being aware of the harms. Furthermore, today citizens are more likely to work overtime to earn more money, resulting in less time for them cooking by themselves. More and more people resort to convenience food. So some outside force to help them cut down reliance on this tasty but harmful food, like raising the levy, may make a difference.

On the other hand, it should be the government’s responsibility to resist the excessive eating of junk food. This is because if a growing number of citizens have medical conditions, the burdens of the healthcare services system will soar. Thus the government would have no choice but to budget a multitude of funds towards healthcare. Compounding this is that other fields, such as education and infrastructure construction also need huge investments. In this way, raising the tax would be the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce the potential cost of eating fast food.

To summarize, I believe that it would be a practical and efficient way to offer a higher tax for fast food to the public. This measure could enormously reduce people’s dependence on fast food.

Fast food plays an increasingly essential role in people’s lives today. Whether the government should make the tax of it higher or not is a hot issue. I believe a higher levy can efficiently control the purchase of fast food and make the public healthier.

On the one hand, people have little self-control when facing seduction. Hence the government’s help is necessary. Nowadays, due to the convenience and tastiness of fast food, people are fond of earing them. The reason lies in that people prepare them in advance without freshness. Furthermore, to maintain the excellent taste of the food, harmful additives that could lead to a wide range of diseases are added in them. So,  governments should do their part to control the purchase of fast food by imposing a higher tax.

On the other hand, with more and more citizens suffering diseases caused by an unhealthy diet, the labor market will be influenced. It seems that once more and more people go to hospital to treat their illness, those who make efforts to work would be less and less. This situation will cause detrimental consequences to the quality of the workforces. The responsibility rests with the government to take steps to make the citizens healthier to guarantee the quality of the workforce.

To summarize, if the government raises the tax of junk food, the public will restrict eating them. This will benefit not only people’s health, but also the quality of the workforce of a country.

Fast food plays an increasingly essential role in people’s lives today. Whether the government should make the tax of it higher or not is a hot issue. I believe a higher levy is able to efficiently control the purchase of fast food and make the public healthier.

On the one hand, people have little self-control when facing seduction, hence the government’s help is necessary. Nowadays, due to the convenience and tastiness of fast food, they have been increasingly eaten by people. The reason why this food is convenient is that they have been prepared early without freshness. Furthermore, to maintain the excellent taste of the food, there are always harmful additives that could leads to a wide range of diseases in them . Therefore, it is necessary for the governments to do their part to control the purchase of fast food by imposing a higher tax.

On the other hand, with more and more citizens suffering diseases caused by the unhealthy diet, the labor market will be influenced. It seems that once more and more people go to hospital to treat their diseases because of fast food, those who make efforts to work would be less and less, which will cause detrimental consequences to the quality of labor market. Apparently, the responsibility rests with the government to take steps to make the citizens healthier to guarantee the quality of workforce to some degree.

To summarize, if the government raise the tax of the junk food, the public will restrict the eating of it, which will benefit a lot not only people’s health,but also the quality of workforce of a country.