across-the-board percentage reduction

简明释义

以百分率计全面降价，以百分率计全面减低

英英释义

例句

1.In response to the financial crisis, the school district decided on an across-the-board percentage reduction in funding for all programs.

由于金融危机，学区决定对所有项目的资金进行全面百分比削减。

2.The company announced an across-the-board percentage reduction in salaries to cope with the economic downturn.

公司宣布对所有员工的薪资进行全面百分比削减以应对经济衰退。

3.The government implemented an across-the-board percentage reduction in tax rates to stimulate spending.

政府实施了全面百分比削减税率以刺激消费。

4.The new policy includes an across-the-board percentage reduction in employee bonuses.

新政策包括对员工奖金进行全面百分比削减。

5.Due to budget constraints, there will be an across-the-board percentage reduction in departmental budgets next year.

由于预算限制，明年各部门的预算将进行全面百分比削减。

作文

In recent years, many organizations and governments have faced financial challenges that necessitate difficult decisions regarding budgets. One common approach to address these challenges is the implementation of an across-the-board percentage reduction, which refers to a uniform cut in funding or resources across all departments or programs. This method is often seen as a straightforward solution, as it applies the same percentage decrease to every area without prioritizing one over another. However, while it may seem fair on the surface, there are significant implications and potential drawbacks to consider.Firstly, an across-the-board percentage reduction can lead to a lack of strategic focus. By applying the same percentage cut universally, organizations may inadvertently harm their most vital programs or services. For example, if a nonprofit organization that provides essential health services implements a 10% cut across the board, this may severely impact their medical outreach programs while leaving less critical administrative expenses relatively unscathed. As a result, the overall mission of the organization could be compromised, leading to a diminished capacity to serve those in need.Moreover, this approach can create a culture of mediocrity within an organization. When all departments receive the same reduction, there is little incentive for teams to innovate or improve efficiency. Instead of encouraging departments to find ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality, an across-the-board percentage reduction can foster complacency. Employees may feel that no matter how well they perform, their budgets will be slashed equally, which can lead to decreased morale and productivity.Another concern is the lack of consideration for the unique needs and circumstances of different departments. Each program or service may have varying levels of funding requirements based on its specific goals and objectives. For instance, a research department may require substantial funding to continue its projects, whereas a marketing team might be able to operate effectively with a smaller budget. By implementing an across-the-board percentage reduction, decision-makers overlook these distinctions, potentially jeopardizing the overall effectiveness of the organization.Furthermore, stakeholders and beneficiaries of services may be adversely affected by such blanket cuts. If a government implements an across-the-board percentage reduction in public services, citizens may experience longer wait times for essential services, reduced access to education, or diminished support for vulnerable populations. The consequences of these reductions can ripple through communities, exacerbating existing inequalities and creating new challenges.In conclusion, while an across-the-board percentage reduction may appear to be a fair and simple solution to budgetary constraints, it is crucial to recognize its limitations. Organizations must carefully evaluate their priorities and consider the potential impacts of such cuts on their overall mission and effectiveness. Instead of resorting to uniform reductions, a more strategic approach that assesses the unique needs of each department can lead to better outcomes and a more sustainable future. Ultimately, the goal should be to preserve the integrity of essential services while navigating financial challenges, ensuring that both organizations and the communities they serve can thrive despite economic pressures.

近年来，许多组织和政府面临着财务挑战，这迫使他们在预算方面做出艰难的决定。一种常见的方法是实施全面的百分比削减，指的是对所有部门或项目的资金或资源进行统一削减。这种方法通常被视为一种简单的解决方案，因为它对每个领域应用相同的百分比减少，而不优先考虑某一特定领域。然而，尽管这种做法表面上看似公平，但实际上存在重大影响和潜在缺陷需要考虑。首先，全面的百分比削减可能导致缺乏战略重点。通过对所有部门普遍实施相同的百分比削减，组织可能无意中损害其最重要的项目或服务。例如，如果一家提供基本健康服务的非营利组织实施10%的全局削减，这可能会严重影响他们的医疗外展项目，而让不太重要的行政开支相对不受影响。因此，该组织的整体使命可能会受到损害，导致服务能力下降。此外，这种方法可能在组织内部创造一种平庸的文化。当所有部门都收到相同的削减时，团队就很少有动力去创新或提高效率。与其鼓励各部门找到削减成本而不牺牲质量的方法，不如说全面的百分比削减会助长自满。员工可能会觉得，无论他们表现得多么出色，预算都将被平等削减，这可能导致士气和生产力下降。另一个问题是缺乏对不同部门独特需求和情况的考虑。每个项目或服务可能根据其特定目标和宗旨有不同的资金需求。例如，研究部门可能需要大量资金来继续其项目，而市场营销团队可能能够以较小的预算有效运作。通过实施全面的百分比削减，决策者忽视了这些区别，可能危及组织的整体有效性。此外，利益相关者和服务受益者可能会因这种一刀切的削减而受到不利影响。如果政府在公共服务中实施全面的百分比削减，公民可能会经历更长的等待时间，获得教育的机会减少，或对弱势群体的支持减弱。这些削减的后果可能在社区中产生连锁反应，加剧现有的不平等，并创造新的挑战。总之，尽管全面的百分比削减看起来是一种公平且简单的预算约束解决方案，但至关重要的是要认识到其局限性。组织必须仔细评估其优先事项，并考虑这些削减对其整体使命和有效性的潜在影响。与其诉诸于统一削减，不如采取更具战略性的方法，评估每个部门的独特需求，以实现更好的结果和更可持续的未来。最终，目标应该是在应对财务挑战时保护基本服务的完整性，确保组织及其服务的社区能够在经济压力下繁荣发展。