They have no idea at all____.
 A. where he has gone    　　　　　　　　 B. there did he go
C. which place has he gone   　　　　　　　D. where has he gone

As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partly because most people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and put more effort, to achieve those goals.
What’s far less understood by scientists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting. Newspapers convey daily accounts of goal-setting widespread in industries and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street, yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-advocated practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis, and immoral behavior in general.
“Goals are widely used and promoted as having really beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to put more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in immoral behaviors,” says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at Penn’s Wharton School. His paper, titled “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Praised Goal Setting,” appears in the February issue of the Academy of Management Perspectives.
“It turns out there’s no financial benefit to just having a goal---you just get a psychological benefit” Schweitzer says. “But in many cases, goals have financial rewards that make them more powerful.”
A major example Schweitzer and his colleagues give is the 2004 breakdown of energy-trading giant Enron( 德国安然公司), where managers used financial rewards to motivate salesmen to meet specific goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is that the actual trades were not profitable. 
Other studies have shown that burdening employees with unrealistic goals can force them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case in the early 1990s when Sears（西尔斯公司）placed a sales quota (销售限额) on its auto repair staff. It inspired employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.
Schweitzer admits his research runs counter to a very large body of literature that praises the many benefits of goal-setting. Advocates of the practice have argued with his team’s use of such evidence as news accounts to support his conclusion that goal-setting is widely over-praised.
In a rebuttal (反驳) paper, Dr. Edwin Locke writes: “Goal-setting is not going away. Organizations cannot grow without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can grow without goals to provide a sense of purpose.”
But Schweitzer argues the “evidence” linking goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help draw attention to issues that deserve attention and further investigation. “Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects,” he says.
The debate is likely to get heated on in future papers, and the practice of setting goals no doubt will continue. For now, though, the lesson seems to be to put more thought into setting goals.
“Goal-setting does help motivate people. My idea would be to combine that with careful management, a strong organizational culture, and make sure the goals that you use are going to be constructive and not significantly harmful to the organization,” Schweitzer says.
【小题1】What does Maurice Schweitzer want to show by mentioning the example of Enron?

As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partly because most people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and put more effort, to achieve those goals.

What’s far less understood by scientists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting. Newspapers convey daily accounts of goal-setting widespread in industries and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street, yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-advocated practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis, and immoral behavior in general.

“Goals are widely used and promoted as having really beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to put more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in immoral behaviors,” says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor at Penn’s Wharton School. His paper, titled “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Praised Goal Setting,” appears in the February issue of the Academy of Management Perspectives.

“It turns out there’s no financial benefit to just having a goal---you just get a psychological benefit” Schweitzer says. “But in many cases, goals have financial rewards that make them more powerful.”

A major example Schweitzer and his colleagues give is the 2004 breakdown of energy-trading giant Enron( 德国安然公司), where managers used financial rewards to motivate salesmen to meet specific goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is that the actual trades were not profitable. 

Other studies have shown that burdening employees with unrealistic goals can force them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case in the early 1990s when Sears（西尔斯公司）placed a sales quota (销售限额) on its auto repair staff. It inspired employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.

Schweitzer admits his research runs counter to a very large body of literature that praises the many benefits of goal-setting. Advocates of the practice have argued with his team’s use of such evidence as news accounts to support his conclusion that goal-setting is widely over-praised.

In a rebuttal (反驳) paper, Dr. Edwin Locke writes: “Goal-setting is not going away. Organizations cannot grow without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can grow without goals to provide a sense of purpose.”

But Schweitzer argues the “evidence” linking goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help draw attention to issues that deserve attention and further investigation. “Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects,” he says.

The debate is likely to get heated on in future papers, and the practice of setting goals no doubt will continue. For now, though, the lesson seems to be to put more thought into setting goals.

“Goal-setting does help motivate people. My idea would be to combine that with careful management, a strong organizational culture, and make sure the goals that you use are going to be constructive and not significantly harmful to the organization,” Schweitzer says.

1.What does Maurice Schweitzer want to show by mentioning the example of Enron?

A．Setting realistic goals can turn a failing business into success.

B．Businesses are likely to succeed without realistic goals.

C．Companies are certain to meet specific goals with financial rewards.

D．Goals with financial rewards have strong motivational power.

2.How did Sears’ goal-setting affect its employees?

A．They had to work more hours to increase their sales.

B．They competed with one another to attract more customers.

C．They turned to immoral practice to reach their goals.

D．They improved their customer service on a companywide basis.

3.The underlined words “runs counter to” (Paragraph 7) can be replaced by ________.

A．agrees with        B．goes against        C．fits in with         D．applies to

4.What is Edwin Locke’s argument against Schweitzer?

A．The practice of setting goals only helps people to develop.

B．Goal-setting is of no use motivating people to accomplish their tasks.

C．The positive effects of goal-setting outweigh its negative effects.

D．Studying goal-setting can contribute to successful business practices.

5.According to the passage, the author tries to convey ___________.

A．the goals that most people set are unrealistic.

B．all people can improve their work quality by setting goals.

C．setting goals can provide people with a sense of purpose.

D．people should not ignore the negative effects of goal-setting.