How Should You Build up Your Vocabulary? [A] Exactly what do you do during a normal day? How do you spend your time? Paul T. Rankin very much wanted an answer to that question. To get it, he asked sixty-eight individuals to keep an accurate, detailed record of what they did every minute of their waking hours. When he consolidated (巩固) his findings, he discovered that the average individual spent 70 percent of his waking time doing one thing only—communication. That meant either reading, writing, speaking or listening. [B] Put that evidence alongside of the research findings uncovered by the Human Engineering Laboratories. In exploring aptitudes (智能) and careers involving, among other things, data from 30,000 vocabulary tests given yearly, they discovered that big incomes and big vocabularies go together. Vocabulary, more than any other factor yet known, predicts financial success. [C] And it all fits. Each word you add to your vocabulary makes you a better reader, writer, speaker and listener. Furthermore, linguistic scientists are quick to point out that we actually think with words. If that is so, new words make us better thinkers as well as communicators. No wonder more words are likely to mean more money. What better reason for beginning right now to extend your vocabulary? [D] Take reading. What exactly do you read? Common sense says you read words. Research confirms that fact. "Vocabulary in context" contributes 39 percent to comprehension. That's more than any other factor isolated and studied—even more than intelligence. And "word discrimination" contributes more to speed of reading than any other factor—28 percent. In short, your efforts to improve vocabulary will pay off in both comprehension and speed. [E] Suppose, as you're reading along, you "lumtebs" across a strange word. Did you find yourself stopping for a closer look at lumtebs? Pardon the spelling slip. That's actually the word "stumble" (偶然发现). The letter just got mixed around. Obviously you now know that strange words do slow you down—or even stop you completely. Furthermore, strange words hinder (妨碍) comprehension. Which is easier to understand, "Eschew garrulity" or "Avoiding talking too much"? [F] What you need is a vital, dynamic approach to vocabulary building. Hybrid (混合种) corn combines the best qualities of several varieties to ensure maximum productivity. A hybrid approach to vocabulary should, in the same way, ensure maximum results. That's why you should use the CPD formula. Through Context [G] When students in a college class were asked what should be done when they came across an unknown word in their reading, 84 percent said, "Look it up in the dictionary." If you do, however, you short-circuit the very mental processes needed to make your efforts most productive. [H] But there's another reason. Suppose someone asks you what the word fast means. You answer, "speedy or swift". But does it mean that in such contexts as "fast color", "fast woman", or "fast friend"? And if a horse is fast, is it securely tied or galloping (飞驰) at top speed? It could be either. It all depends. On the dictionary? No, on context—on how the word is actually used. After all, there are over twenty different meanings for fast in the dictionary. But the dictionary doesn't tell you which meaning is intended. That's why it makes such good sense to begin with context. Through Word Parts [I] Now for the next step. Often unfamiliar words contain one or more parts, which, if recognized, provide definite help with meaning. Suppose you read that someone "had a predilection for reading mysteries". The context certainly isn't too helpful. But do you see a prefix, suffix or root that you know? Well, there's the familiar prefix pre-, meaning "before". Look back at the context and try inserting "before". Reading mysteries apparently comes "before" other kinds of reading. Yes, a predilection—or preference—is something put "before" something else. Or take the word monolithic. Try to isolate the parts. There is the prefix mono-, meaning "one", and the root lith, meaning "stone". Finally, there's the suffix -ic, meaning "consisting of". Those three parts add up to this definition: "consisting of one stone". [J] To speed up your use of word parts, you will be introduced to the fourteen most important words in the English language. The prefix and root elements in those few words are found in over 14,000 words of desk dictionary size. With those amazingly useful shortcuts, you can build vocabulary, not a snail's pace, one word at a time, but in giant strides, up to a thousand words at a time. Your second step, then, is to look for familiar word parts. If they do not give you exact meanings, they should at least bring you much closer. Through the Dictionary [K] Now you can see why you should consult the dictionary last, not first. You've looked carefully at the context. You've looked for familiar word parts. Now you play Sherlock Holmes—an exciting role. You hypothesize. In light of context or word parts, you try to solve a mystery. What exactly does that strange word mean? Only after you go through the mental gymnastics to come up with a tentative definition should you open the dictionary to see if you're right. [L] After all, those first two steps or approaches spark a stronger than usual interest in that dictionary definition. You're now personally involved. Did you figure out the word meaning? Your heightened interest will lead to a better memory of both word and meaning. It also encourages your development of the habits needed to accelerate your progress. And when you see in black and white the definition you had expected, what a feeling of accomplishment is yours. In that way, the CPD Formula provides the exact dynamic interplay of approaches for maximum effectiveness. [M] Well, there it is, your new formula—Context, Parts, Dictionary. Use it! The exercises that follow will give you specific, step-by-step help in sharpening your awareness of contextual clues, learning the most useful word parts, and using the dictionary with increased accuracy and ease. The results will be like the money in the bank.

Team spirit [A] Teams have become the basic building-blocks of organisations. Recruitment advertisements routinely call for "team players". Business schools grade their students in part on their performance in group projects. Office managers knock down walls to encourage teambuilding. Teams are as old as civilisation, of course, even Jesus had 12 co-workers. But a new report by Deloitte, "Global Human Capital Trends", based on a survey of more than 7,000 executives in over 130 countries, suggests that the fashion for teamwork has reached a new high. Almost half of those surveyed said their companies were either in the middle of restructuring or about to embark on (开始) it; and for the most part, restructuring meant putting more emphasis on teams. [B] Companies are abandoning conventional functional departments and organising employees into cross-disciplinary teams that focus on particular products, problems or customers. These teams are gaining more power to run their own affairs. They are also spending more time working with each other rather than reporting upwards. Deloitte argues that a new organisational form is on the rise: a network of teams is replacing the conventional hierarchy (等级体制). [C] The fashion for teams is driven by a sense that the old way of organising people is too rigid for both the modem marketplace and the expectations of employees. Technological innovation places greater value on agility (灵活性). John Chambers, chairman of Cisco Systems Inc., a worldwide leader in electronics products, says that "we compete against market transitions (过渡), not competitors. Product transitions used to take five or seven years; now they take one or two." Digital technology also makes it easier for people to co-ordinate their activities without resorting to hierarchy. The "millennials" (千禧一代 ) who will soon make up half the workforce in rich countries were raised from nursery school onwards to work in groups. [D] The fashion for teams is also spreading from the usual corporate suspects (such as GE and IBM) to some more unusual ones. The Cleveland Clinic, a hospital operator, has reorganised its medical staff into teams to focus on particular treatment areas; consultants, nurses and others collaborate closely instead of being separated by speciality (专业) and rank. The US Army has gone the same way. In his book, Team of Teams, General Stanley McChrystal describes how the army's hierarchical structure hindered its operations during the early stages of the Iraq war. His solution was to learn something from the rebels it was fighting: decentralising authority to self-organising teams. [E] A good rule of thumb is that as soon as generals and hospital administrators jump on a management bandwagon (追随一种管理潮流), it is time to ask questions. Leigh Thompson of Kellogg School of Management in Illinois warns that, "Teams are not always the answer—teams may provide insight, creativity and knowledge in a way that a person working independently cannot; but teamwork may also lead to confusion, delay and poor decision-making." The late Richard Hackman of Harvard University once argued, "I have no question that when you have a team, the possibility exists that it will generate magic, producing something extraordinary... But don't count on it." [F] Hackman (who died in 2013) noted that teams are hindered by problems of co-ordination and motivation that chip away at the benefits of collaboration. High-flyers (能干的人) who are forced to work in teams may be undervalued and free-riders empowered. Group-think may be unavoidable. In a study of 120 teams of senior executives, he discovered that less than 10% of their supposed members agreed on who exactly was on the team. If it is hard enough to define a team's membership, agreeing on its purpose is harder still. [G] Profound changes in the workforce are making teams trickier to manage. Teams work best if their members have a strong common culture. This is hard to achieve when, as is now the case in many big firms, a large proportion of staff are temporary contractors. Teamwork improves with time: America's National Transportation Safety Board found that 73% of the incidents in its civil-aviation database occurred on a crew's first day of flying together. However, as Amy Edmondson of Harvard points out, organisations increasingly use "team" as a verb rather than a noun: they form teams for specific purposes and then quickly disband them. [H] The least that can be concluded from this research is that companies need to think harder about managing teams. They need to rid their minds of sentimentalism (感情用事): the most successful teams have leaders who are able to set an overall direction and take immediate action. They need to keep teams small and focused: giving in to pressure to be more "inclusive" is a guarantee of dysfunction. Jeff Bezos, Amazon's boss, says that "If I see more than two pizzas for lunch, the team is too big." They need to immunise teams against group-think: Hackman argued that the best ones contain "deviants" (离经叛道者) who are willing to do something that may be upsetting to others. [I] A new study of 12,000 workers in 17 countries by Steelcase, a furniture-maker which also does consulting, finds that the best way to ensure employees are "engaged" is to give them more control over where and how they do their work—which may mean liberating them from having to do everything in collaboration with others. [J] However, organisations need to learn something bigger than how to manage teams better they need to be in the habit of asking themselves whether teams are the best tools for the job. Team-building skills are in short supply: Deloitte reports that only 12% of the executives they contacted feel they understand the way people work together in networks and only 21% feel confident in their ability to build cross-functional teams. Loosely managed teams can become hotbeds of distraction—employees routinely complain that they can't get their work done because they are forced to spend too much time in meetings or compelled to work in noisy offices. Even in the age of open-plan offices and social networks some work is best left to the individual.

Is Breakfast Really the Most Important Meal of the Day? [A] Along with old classics like "carrots give you night vision" and "Santa doesn't bring toys to misbehaving children", one of the most well-worn phrases of tired parents everywhere is that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Many of us grow up believing that skipping breakfast is a serious mistake, even if only two thirds of adults in the UK eat breakfast regularly, according to the British Dietetic Association, and around three-quarters of Americans. [B] "The body uses a lot of energy stores for growth and repair through the night," explains diet specialist Sarah Elder. "Eating a balanced breakfast helps to up our energy, as well as make up for protein and calcium used throughout the night." But there's widespread disagreement over whether breakfast should keep its top spot in the hierarchy (等级) of meals. There have been concerns around the sugar content of cereal and the food industry's involvement in pro-breakfast research—and even one claim from an academic that breakfast is "dangerous". [C] What's the reality? Is breakfast a necessary start to the day or a marketing tactic by cereal companies? The most researched aspect of breakfast (and breakfast-skipping) has been its links to obesity. Scientists have different theories as to why there's a relationship between the two. In one US study that analysed the health data of 50,000 people over seven years, researchers found that those who made breakfast the largest meal of the day were more likely to have a lower body mass index (BMI) than those who ate a large lunch or dinner. The researchers argued that breakfast helps reduce daily calorie intake, improve the quality of our diet—since breakfast foods are often higher in fibre and nutrients. [D] But as with any study of this kind, it was unclear if that was the cause—or if breakfast-skippers were just more likely to be overweight to begin with. To find out, researchers designed a study in which 52 obese women took part in a 12-week weight loss programme. All had the same number of calories over the day, but half had breakfast, while the other half did not What they found was that it wasn't breakfast itself that caused the participants to lose weight it was changing their normal routine. [E] If breakfast alone isn't a guarantee of weight loss, why is there a link between obesity and breakfast-skipping? Alexandra Johnstone, professor of appetite research at the University of Aberdeen, argues that it may simply be because breakfast-skippers have been found to be less knowledgeable about nutrition and health. "There are a lot of studies on the relationship between breakfast eating and possible health outcomes, but this may be because those who eat breakfast choose to habitually have health-enhancing behaviours such as regular exercise and not smoking," she says. [F] A 2016 review of 10 studies looking into the relationship between breakfast and weight management concluded there is "limited evidence" supporting or refuting (反驳) the argument that breakfast influences weight or food intake, and more evidence is required before breakfast recommendations can be used to help prevent obesity. [G] Researchers from the University of Surrey and University of Aberdeen are halfway through research looking into the mechanisms behind how the time we eat influences body weight. Early findings suggest that a bigger breakfast is beneficial to weight control. Breakfast has been found to affect more than just weight. Skipping breakfast has been associated with a 27% increased risk of heart disease, a 21% higher risk of type 2 diabetes in men, and a 20% higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women. One reason may be breakfast's nutritional value—partly because cereal is fortified (增加营养价值) with vitamins. In one study on the breakfast habits of 1,600 young people in the UK, researchers found that the fibre and micronutrient intake was better in those who had breakfast regularly. There have been similar findings in Australia, Brazil, Canada and the US. [H] Breakfast is also associated with improved brain function, including concentration and language use. A review of 54 studies found that eating breakfast can improve memory, though the effects on other brain functions were inconclusive. However, one of the review's researchers, Mary Beth Spitznagel, says there is "reasonable" evidence breakfast does improve concentration—there just needs to be more research "Looking at studies that tested concentration, the number of studies showing a benefit was exactly the same as the number that found no benefit," she says. "And no studies found that eating breakfast was bad for concentration." [I] What's most important, some argue, is what we eat for breakfast. High-protein breakfasts have been found particularly effective in reducing the longing for food and consumption later in the day, according to research by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. While cereal remains a firm favourite among breakfast consumers in the UK and US, a recent investigation into the sugar content of 'adult' breakfast cereals found that some cereals contain more than three-quarters of the recommended daily amount of free sugars in each portion, and sugar was the second or third highest ingredient in cereals. [J] But some research suggests if we're going to eat sugary foods, it's best to do it early. One study recruited 200 obese adults to take part in a 16-week-long diet, where half added dessert to their breakfast, and half didn't. Those who added dessert lost an average of 40 pounds more—however, the study was unable to show the long-term effects. A review of 54 studies found that there is no consensus yet on what type of breakfast is healthier, and concluded that the type of breakfast doesn't matter as much as simply eating something. [K] While there's no conclusive evidence on exactly what we should be eating and when, the consensus is that we should listen to our own bodies and eat when we're hungry. "Breakfast is most important for people who are hungry when they wake up," Johnstone says." Each body starts the day differently—and those individual differences need to be researched more closely," Spitznagel says. "A balanced breakfast is really helpful, but getting regular meals throughout the day is more important to leave blood sugar stable through the day, which helps control weight and hunger levels," says Elder. "Breakfast isn't the only meal we should be getting right."