大公司和小公司雅思英語
Ⅰ 哪個幫忙寫一篇關於選擇大公司還是小公司的英語作文呀!!!!
Yueqing Boussi Trading Co.,Ltd,sits in wenzhou,zhejiang Province,on the southeast coast of China.Our company is a highly technology enterprise,most specilized in all kinds of alt sex procts.The main collection we currently supply include:toys for men,toys for women,sex toys series massage appliance. Our company procts have passed ISO9001,and got the CE approval in succession.Export to Europe,Middle East,Africa and southeast Asia area, got high prestige at home and abroad.Adhere to the policy that "quality first,consumer first".Received a high opinion in the state Bureau of Technical supervision,people administers and so on. We sincerely welcome all customers to contact us and work together with our conpany.
Ⅱ 大公司和小公司有什麼區別
大公司學做人，小公司學做事。這句耳熟能詳，廣為傳頌的職場哲學 在大公司大部分的辦專公時間用在和內部溝通屬上，每做一件事情首先要考慮它可能會觸動到的關系，影響到的相關人和事情。還要考慮到和不同人溝通，不同級別溝通，內外部客戶溝通各自的側重點，事情沒開始做，計劃要寫一堆，經過多次校正。然後推行起來又會受到很多客觀與突發的因素的影響，感覺做一件事情真累，效率很低。但是學會了全面的考慮事情，就是難免有些繁文縟節要顧及。 在小公司，做事情幾乎老闆同意就沒有大問題。但是因為決議太快，也會有後遺症。老闆容易拍腦袋做事情，說過了就忘記了，許諾了但是到時候就不承認了。真的是不講計劃只有變化。事情決議是快了，但是做起來偶爾很有效率，偶爾也是拖拉半死，導致事情最終會效率也未必很高。 大公司小公司都是我們學習和創造的平台。公司本身只是個外部條件，關鍵看自己的個人目標設定，任何的環境下，都會有自己的能夠得到的東西，關鍵看機會成本。
麻煩採納，謝謝!
Ⅲ 求一篇英文作文，題目是《有一個大公司和小公司你會選哪個》，100字左右
Which Company would you like to choose?The Big one or The Small One.
If there are two companies I can choose freely, I think I would like to choose the big one. because in the big company, I have more opportunities to get in touch with more people. I think I can learn a lot from them. And big company means you will get more space for your promotion. They need more positions,so you are given to chance to introce yourself to others. But in the small company, there are less people in it and the positions are also rare. It is much more difficult to get promotion.
Ⅳ 求一篇英語寫作：大公司比小公司有優勢
Company size
Big is back
Aug 27th 20098 Q5 d6 P' @' x1 W% F
From The Economist print edition
Corporate giants were on the defensive for decades. Now they have the advantage again
Illustration by Jon Berkerly
IN 1996, in one of his most celebrated phrases, Bill Clinton declared that 「the era of big government is over」. He might have added that the era of big companies was over, too. The organisation that defined capitalism for much of the 20th century was then in retreat, attacked by corporate raiders, harassed by shareholders and outfoxed by entrepreneurs.
Great names such as Pan Am had disappeared. Others had survived only by dint of huge bloodletting: IBM sacked 122,000 people, a quarter of its workforce, between 1990 and 1995. Everyone agreed that the future lay with entrepreneurial start-ups such as Yahoo!—which in late 1998 had the same market capitalisation with 637 employees as Boeing with 230,000. The share of GDP proced by big instrial companies fell by half between 1974 and 1998, from 36% to 17%.
Today the balance of advantage may be shifting again. To a degree, the financial crisis is responsible. It has devastated the venture-capital market, the lifeblood of many young firms. Governments have been rescuing companies they consider too big to fail, such as Citigroup and General Motors. Recession is squeezing out smaller and less well-connected firms. But there are other reasons too, which are giving big companies a self-confidence they have not displayed for decades.
Big can be beautiful…
Of course, big companies never went away. There were still plenty of first-rate ones: Unilever and Toyota continued to innovate through thick and thin. And not all start-ups were models of success: Netscape and Enron promised to revolutionise their instries only to crash and burn. Nevertheless, the balance had shifted in favour of small organisations.
The entrepreneurial boom was supercharged by two developments. Deregulation opened protected markets. Some national champions, such as AT&T, were broken up. Others saw their markets eaten up by swift-footed newcomers. The arrival of the personal computer in the 1970s and the internet in the 1990s created an army of successful start-ups. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computer in 1976 in the Jobs family』 garage. Microsoft and Dell Computer were both founded by teenagers (in 1975 and 1984 respectively). Larry Page and Sergey Brin started Google in Stanford dorm rooms.4 x9 U) y7 s' [- x4 {9 i; B
But deregulation had already begun to go out of fashion before the financial crisis. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, introced after Enron collapsed in disgrace, increased the regulatory burden on companies of all sizes, but what could be borne by the big could cripple the small. Many of today』s most dynamic instries are much more friendly to big companies than the IT instry. Research in biotechnology is costly and often does not bear fruit for years. Natural-resource companies, whose importance grows as competition for resources intensifies, need to be big—hence the mining instry』s consolidation.
: z( K! G- X) a8 y- V( S" z s5 FTwo further developments are shifting the balance of advantage in favour of size. One is a heightened awareness of the risks of subcontracting. Toy companies and pet-food firms alike have found that their brands can be tainted if their suppliers (notably, from China) turn out shoddy goods. Big instrial companies have learned that their proction cycles can be disrupted if contractors are not up to the mark. Boeing, once a champion of outsourcing, has been forced to take over faltering suppliers.: a+ d8 z% p0 O
A second is the emergence of companies that have discovered how to be entrepreneurial as well as big. These giants are getting better at minimising the costs of size (such as longer, more complex chains of managerial command) while exploiting its advantages (such as presence in several markets and access to a large talent pool). Cisco Systems is pioneering the use of its own video technology to improve communications between its employees. IBM has carried out several company-wide brainstorming exercises, recently involving more than 150,000 people, that have encouraged it to put more emphasis, for example, on green computing. Disney has successfully ingested Pixar』s creative magic.
, {$ e3 Q2 T$ D2 N- F# gYou might suppose that the return of the mighty, now better equipped to crush the competition, is something to worry about. Not necessarily. Big is not always ugly just as small is not always beautiful. Most entrepreneurs dream of turning their start-ups into giants (or at least of selling them to giants for a fortune). There is a symbiosis between large and small. 「Cloud computing」 would not provide young firms with access to huge amounts of computer power if big companies had not created giant servers. Biotech start-ups would go bust were they not given work by giants with deep pockets. ) j h0 v+ ^8 |: Z
The most successful economic ecosystems contain a variety of big and small companies: Silicon Valley boasts long-established names as well as an ever-changing array of start-ups. America』s economy has been more dynamic than Europe』s in recent decades not just because it is better at giving birth to companies but also because it is better at letting them grow. Only 5% of European Union companies born since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest in the EU by market capitalisation. In America, the figure is 22%.. }( ` S- K* g0 h$ M6 M
…but size isn』t really what mattersThe return of the giants could well be a boon for the world economy—but only if business people and policymakers avoid certain pitfalls. Businesses should not make a fetish of size, particularly if this means diversifying into a lot of unrelated areas. The conglomerate model may be tempting when cash is hard to find. But the moment will not last. By and large, the most successful big firms focus on their core businesses.
, B! k. O6 D, n+ r2 [: G- hPolicymakers should both resist an instinctive suspicion of big companies (see article) and avoid the old error of embracing national champions. It is bad enough that governments have diverted resources into propping up failing companies such as General Motors. It would be even more regrettable if they were to return to picking winners. The best use of their energies is to remove the burdens and barriers which prevent entrepreneurs from starting businesses and turning small companies into big ones.
http://bbs.gter.net/bbs/thread-977510-9-1.html
摘自寄託天下
Ⅳ 英語面試問題，大公司，小公司你會怎麼選擇，為什麼用英語回答我的問題，謝謝
不好意思復，本人英文表達能力不好！制！要我選擇，我會選擇小公司！！麻雀雖小，五臟俱全，學到的東西會更多！！當然你得看這家公司是大公司還是小公司，投其所好就OK！！要不然，人家是大公司，你說喜歡小公司，那就不合格了。面試當中每一道題，都是想了解你適合不適合他們公司，你自己職業的一個規化，你對於他們公司來講，有沒有利用價值。
Ⅵ 大公司與小公司的利弊
大公司
優點來：環境好源，體系健全，有五險、工資是固定的，做到什麼程度就會升職也是有規定的，工作8個小時（加班有加班工資），工作穩定。
缺點：工作靈活小、只能做自己分內的事，想學經驗很難，不利於個人的全面發展。
小公司
優點：工作靈活，有個人發展的空間，工資苦的多拿的也多，能開發個人潛力，升職的快。
缺點：經常加班（沒有加班費），個人壓力大，工作環境並不是很好（要看你老闆對環境的要求），工作不是很穩定。
1、小公司相對來說比較簡單，重點在於把事情做好；大公司相對來說比較復雜，重點是把人際關系處好
2、小公司到處能聞到餡餅的香，大公司到處能感覺到水的深——小公司一般發展的速度都比較快，所以小公司給大家帶來的機會更大一些。在大公司裡面，他們的業務相對成熟發展的空間本身就不大，整個組織和業務運轉比較平穩，所以就形成了很多的潛規則，裡面水很深。
3、小公司能夠歷練你的綜合能力，大公司能夠歷練你的專業能力
4、小公司跳到大公司難度比較大；而大公司跳到小公司相對較容易
Ⅶ 大公司和小公司各有什麼優缺點
大公司
優點：環境好，體系健全，有五險、工資是固定的，做到什麼程度就會升職也內是有規定的，工作8個小時（加班容有加班工資），工作穩定。
缺點：工作靈活小、只能做自己分內的事，想學經驗很難，不利於個人的全面發展。
小公司
優點：工作靈活，有個人發展的空間，工資苦的多拿的也多，能開發個人潛力，升職的快。
缺點：經常加班（沒有加班費），個人壓力大，工作環境並不是很好（要看你老闆對環境的要求），工作不是很穩定。
(7)大公司和小公司雅思英語擴展閱讀：
1、小公司相對來說比較簡單，重點在於把事情做好；大公司相對來說比較復雜，重點是把人際關系處好
2、小公司到處能聞到餡餅的香，大公司到處能感覺到水的深——小公司一般發展的速度都比較快，所以小公司給大家帶來的機會更大一些。在大公司裡面，他們的業務相對成熟發展的空間本身就不大，整個組織和業務運轉比較平穩，所以就形成了很多的潛規則，裡面水很深。
3、小公司能夠歷練你的綜合能力，大公司能夠歷練你的專業能力
4、小公司跳到大公司難度比較大；而大公司跳到小公司相對較容易
Ⅷ 英語作文:大公司和小公司的區別是什麼 400字
在網上找到的 希望對你有幫助
Some people prefer to work for a large company. Others prefer to work for a small company. Which would you prefer?
Use specific reasons and details to support your choice.
I would prefer to work in a large company rather than a small one. A large company has more to offer in terms of advancement, training, and prestige.
In a large company, I can start at an entry-level position and work myself up to the top. I could start in the mailroom and, once I know the company, can apply for a managerial position. In a small company, there is not as much room to grow.
In a large company, there are a variety of jobs. I could work in sales, in marketing, in distribution, in shopping, or in any department I applied for. I could be trained in a variety of positions and would have valuable experience. In a small company, there would not be the same opportunity.
In a large company, there would be more prestige. I could brag to my friends that I worked for one of the biggest companies in the world. I would always have something to talk about when I met strangers. If I worked in a small company, I would always have to explain what the company did.
Working for a small company would not give me the same opportunities for advancement or on-the-job training as working for a larger company would. Nor would I be as proud to work for a small company---unless the small company was my own.
Ⅸ 英語專四作文滿分範文（37）：去大公司還是小公司
專四題目：為大公司還是小公司工作？
Some people prefer to work for a large company while others prefer to work
for a small company. What is your view?
專四範文：
Choose a Big Company
Whether a small or a big company is better should be judged on a case-to-case
basis. Generally speaking, I would like to take up a job in a big company.
To begin with, big corporations are more reputable and prestigious than small
ones. Therefore, it is easier to acquire a credible recommendation letter if one
ever decides to seek other employment and get on the career ladder. In addition,
big companies often provide satisfactory welfare benefits along with other perks
whereas small enterprises may not always ly value their employees.
Furthermore, the in-house training operated by big corporations benefits
students not for the current job but also has a longlasting impact on their
future career. In addition, renowned companies, especially international ones,
are more likely to offer employees the opportunity to work in different places.
Also, the options presented by small enterprises are often quite limited. Last
but not least, small companies usually lack an efficient infrastructure and this
may create many obstacles for new graates who are not well experienced. Also,
their brand value can hardly compete with well-known big companies.
In summary, albeit that the competition is irrefutably fiercer for the
positions offered by big companies, the aforementioned merits render a big
company a better choice.(208 words)