Read, analyze, and comment on the following readings which include the classic: I, Pencil:
SLDU INDUSTRIES SDN BHD: THE BLAME GAME IN THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
At CEO’s Office – 3 January 2014
“How is this possible? We are not able to achieve even 1 percent
increment from last year, yet we are having 71 plantations
nationwide. An increment of 0.2 percent is not good enough for this
company to survive. The head of production department has to look
into this matter immediately. I want to see an improvement next
year,” Dato‟ Sanusi Ahmad retorted.
He was not satisfied with the company‟s current performance after
reviewing the financial reports obtained from the accounting
department. There was no significant improvement from year 2012 to
2013 based on the profit before tax. He believed that
profitability, growth and shareholder‟s value were important in
determining the company‟s performance and it should be consistent
with employee performance. Although the company made profit, the
amount was quite small and growth was very insignificant.
Subsequently, it would adversely affect shareholders‟ value. The
main challenge faced by SPI now was to maintain a 15% dividend from
their investment set by SLDU.
On 20 January, 2014, Jalil, the head of human resource department
was called up by the CEO. “I think we need to do something with our
performance measurement system. I am perplexed why our financial
performance is lower than expected but our employees scored high
marks in their annual performance evaluation. Something is not
right here. Please look into this matter immediately,” the CEO
demanded.
SLDU’s Human Resources Department
The CEO‟s words rang in his ears loud and clear. Jalil did not
waste any time and decided to examine the issue raised by the CEO.
The first place he visited was the production site, where he
observed the employees for three months. He found the employees to
be complacent: they lacked the motivation to meet the set targets
and were not bothered with the productivity levels targeted for
each department. When he asked the employees, they replied that
they were not aware of the urgency to meet the targets and they
were merely doing what they needed to do. “What‟s the rush?” they
replied. In addition, there was a high frequency of employees on
leave. However, he found some of the reasons given to be
unacceptable. Jalil wondered if the Heads of Departments were aware
of what was actually taking place under their noses.
A week later, Jalil was back in his office. He thought it was a
good idea to examine all the records of competencies from each
department in order to identify any flaw in the performance
evaluation system. For the past few years, SLDU used a new format
for performance evaluation and most of the evaluation marks were at
the satisfactory level. SLDU followed the concept of the normal
distribution in determining the performance marks. The expected
shape of the overall marks should be in accordance with the „bell
curve‟6. Jalil discovered that the figures was skewed at the
extreme values. Further investigation revealed that the evaluation
marks given by the immediate supervisors in all departments were
always high. Therefore, he decided to conduct a meeting with all
Heads of the Departments.
Managing the Managers
In the meeting with all Heads of Departments, on 14 February 2014,
Jalil stressed the importance of assessing, monitoring and
reviewing employee performance within the stipulated time. He also
underlined the significance of employee performance being in
harmony with company performance. A company‟s performance was a
crucial aspect in determining the company‟s progress within a
specific period of time. It indicates the current condition of the
company, the opportunities it was seeking, the overall contribution
to ensure the company was moving forward and therefore it was
important to deliver a company‟s performance target.
There was a lively discussion and exchange of ideas among the Heads
of Departments. However, many did not see the need to re-evaluate
their employees. “Mr. Jalil, what is the big issue here? We have
done our evaluation according to the requirements stated in the
assessment forms. We find our employees to be motivated; they
understand their roles and responsibilities and deliver on time.”
All the managers agreed with Mr. Aziz, who head heads the quality
control department. “It is not our problem if the machine breaks
down for weeks and we cannot perform the extraction process. I
think that is the main reason why we cannot achieve the targeted
yield according to the schedule,” said Mr. Ramli, the head of the
production department. “Actually, we managed to solve the problem
of machine breakdowns and achieved the target accordingly," added
Mr. Krisha from the maintenance department.
“We have established a proper Performance Measurement System (PMS).
It is a shared responsibility between the organization, employee,
reporting managers and reviewing managers. I believe that all of
you had attended the training and understand how it works,” Jalil
explained. “If we work together to strengthen our performance
system, our employees will become much more highly motivated and
productive. I am counting on you to give them the necessary
feedback,” added Jalil. With their in-depth knowledge and wealth of
experience, and having attended a series of talks on performance
appraisal, the Heads of Department were well verse on the PMS. The
training had been on how to rate KPIs, targets and competencies,
and how to derive overall performance ratings. As for Jalil, he
knew that he had pressed the right button to make the managers
realize their roles.
Jalil realized that some managers were not oriented with the
company‟s goals and targets. He felt that these managers merely
gave out tasks related to an employee‟s daily routine, and made
sure everyone had tasks to do. “That should not be the case. As a
manager, there are many other important things to handle, and that
include coaching and employee evaluation,” he thought. From his
earlier investigation, he found that some managers had not
explained to their employees about PMS. To him, it was very
important for all employees to be clear about the system, the
relationship between the company‟s goals, department goals and the
employees‟ responsibilities to achieve these goals, as well as
issues related to the grading. Some managers were not following the
measurable tools given to them in evaluating employee performance.
As far as he was concern, all the managers had attended the
performance evaluation training. He felt that the information had
not been disseminated properly to every employee at every level of
the organization. “I understand that everyone is doing his job
here, but still we are not performing up to standard. We have
targets to achieve, and we need to do our best to achieve them. We
need to be aligned with our CEO‟s mission,” Jalil lamented. To him,
the CEO was very ambitious and forward-looking. The CEO believed
that in order for a company to succeed, it must have a strong
internal control system and now, he had enforced the implementation
of a proper evaluation system.
Jalil felt relieved after talking to the Heads of Departments and
hoped that they understood the seriousness of the matter and the
urgency to re-look at the current performance evaluation practice.
Jalil spent hours thinking about how to get the employees geared
towards achieving the organizational goals. He felt that the
current performance measurement system placed too much emphasis on
financial performance measures. Jalil wondered whether they should
implement the balanced scorecard (BSC).
Production Department
As head of production department, one of Ramli‟s responsibilities
was to ensure the welfare of his employees. He was both a manager
and a friend to them, and he felt he needed to do as much as
possible to help them. Ramli gave his employees high ratings
because annual increments, bonuses and promotions were heavily tied
to the performance results. In his opinion, he was doing them a
favor and hoped that they would be motivated and continue to
perform their best in the future.
“What is so wrong with that?” Ramli asked himself. He thought that
by being an understanding manager, it would help to increase the
motivation level of his employees. He wanted to make them feel like
they were a part of a family and wanted them to enjoy working under
him. As a token of appreciation, his employees always brought
“presents” for him. To Ramli, it was a “normal practice,” but some
of his colleagues frowned upon it and considered it as
bribery.
Jalil‟s directive that employee reassessment be carried out caused
a bit of worry for Ramli. After the meeting with Jalil, Ramli was
seen busy filling up the evaluation forms. Jalil had reminded him
to be fair, honest, and rate his employees based on their
performance. Ramli felt that he had done what he needed to do, and
believed that nothing was wrong with the way he previously
evaluated his employees. He felt that Jalil was trying to make this
a big issue.
“Of course the CEO has certain targets to achieve, yet we are all
human beings who have limitations in doing our work. It is not that
we are not trying. I have worked in the company for almost 30
years. Some employees have been working under my supervision for 10
years. I even know their family members and the difficulties they
are facing.”
Ramli was puzzled why the productivity graph of his department was
not that good despite the excellent individual performance. He
strongly believed that his employees were hardworking and did their
jobs rather well. He thought that it was normal if his employees
took leave occasionally due to family matters or sickness. “After
all, they are humans. Aren‟t they allowed to fall sick? They do
have responsibilities to their family too,” he reflected.
Current Practice of Performance Measurement System (PMS)
SPI adopted SLDU Group‟s policy and approach in assessing employee
performance. SLDU Group‟s definition of performance in the
measurement system included both KPIs and competencies. It is a
concept of measuring results or output that reinforces the link
between individual goals and business strategy. This approach to
measuring competencies gives greater emphasis on employee
development and enables them to achieve individual goals and align
their behavior to the organization's values. The purpose is to
enhance employee motivation and to improve business
performance.
The two key elements of performance assessment and reward need to
be balanced. The first key element was to achieve business results
known as „the WHAT‟ and second, was how could the employees
demonstrate the shared values and competencies to accomplish the
results known as „the HOW.‟ Therefore, the key principles of PMS
addressed both the “What” and “How” of individual employee
performance in a balanced manner. SLDU‟s PMS stressed the
importance of achieving both results and the demonstration of
shared values and competencies by all categories of the employees
concerned.
The PMS subscribed to the basic idea of “What Gets Measured Gets
Done.” It also aligned SLDU Group‟s vision and strategies with
individual employee‟s actions, allowing them to understand clearly
how their performance directly contributes to the business goals
and results. PMS was an integrated system, supported by other key
areas of the human resource processes, such as employee
compensation, promotion, career development and succession
planning. It was a mechanism to differentiate high performers from
the others, for the purpose of rewarding and recognition, and other
human resource decisions. Performance management within the PMS
followed an ongoing cycle of activities throughout the year, unlike
traditional employee appraisal, which tend to be perceived as a
once a year event. In this respect, SLDU Group‟s performance
management cycle comprised of three phases that take place
throughout the review period: Performance Planning, Performance
Assessment and Performance Rewarding.
The Performance Planning phase can be described as the expectations
setting stage, where the appraiser and appraisee work together to
create a performance plan. Basically, it consisted of the “WHAT”
results; for example objectives, KPIs and targets to be achieved;
and the “HOW” for example shared values and competencies that
employees need to develop, apply and demonstrate during the course
of the PMS cycle. The end product of the planning phase was the
mutual agreement on the performance plan and the creation of a
development plan to build the required competencies to execute the
results effectively.
In the Performance Assessment phase, quantitative targets were
independently computed; the supervisor obtained inputs from peers,
employees and clients. In short, the assessment was a formal
appraisal of the actual results achieved as measured against the
plan. It was a culmination of previous reviews (formal and
informal) that were undertaken in tracking performance progress.
There should not be any major surprises when comparing the actual
results with the plan, if employee performance was consistently
monitored and tracked, and corrective actions were taken
accordingly to modify or improve the plan. The end-review also
provided the opportunity for the parties concerned to decide what
can be done to improve results, developed the desired competencies
and relevant development plans in preparation for the next
performance cycle.
The Performance Rewarding phase addressed the outcome and
consequences of the business or organizational results achieved and
the demonstration of the desired level of competencies to
accomplish by the respective employees. Performance results would
ultimately determine financial and non-financial rewards, or
whatever options deemed necessary.
An MNC, with operations across the globe and employs hundreds of
employees, required an effective system to measure its performance
to remain competitive in the market. As practiced in other
companies, top management together with all Heads of Departments,
would have a series of KPI planning sessions. The main purpose was
to ensure that the employees‟ KPIs were aligned with the company‟s
targets, since their progress would be reflected in the company‟s
performance. Undoubtedly, if the employees‟ scores were low, the
company score would also be affected.
Two major questions lingered on his mind: Should SLDU relook at how strategic objectives of the company are cascaded down to the departments and eventually to individual employees? Should SLDU implement a balanced scorecard as balanced scorecard focuses on both financial and non-financial measures?
He only had one month from now before the next management meeting.
In: Accounting
Item 1
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
To summarize, the elaboration model of instruction starts by presenting knowledge at a very general or simplified level in the form of a special kind of overview. Then it proceeds to add detail or complexity in "layers" across the entire breadth of the content of the course (or curriculum), one layer at a time, until the desired level of detail or complexity is reached. References: |
They soon switched to a model based on the elaboration theory (Reigeluth, 1999). Using this approach, the game would begin with a level that offered the simplest version of the whole task (the epitome); subsequent levels would become increasingly more complex--an approach common to videogames--with opportunities for review and synthesis. References: |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 2
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
Other major issues involve the accepted methods by which fidelity is measured. There are two major methods described in the literature for fidelity measurement. The first is through mathematical measurement that calculates the number of identical elements shared between the real world and the simulation; the greater the number of shared identical elements, the higher the simulation fidelity. A second method to measure fidelity is through a trainees' performance matrix. References: |
Liu et al. (2009) identified two major methods for measuring fidelity. The first is a mathematical (objective) method that requires counting "the number of identical elements shared between the real world and the simulation; the greater the number of shared identical elements, the higher the simulation fidelity" (p. 62). The second method involves a performance matrix that compares a human's performance in the simulation with that person's real-world performance, producing an indirect measure of fidelity. References: |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 3
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
Educational researchers, policymakers, and practitioners agree that educational research is often divorced from the problems and issues of everyday practice--a split that creates a need for new research approaches that speak directly to problems of practice (National Research Council [NRC], 2002) and that lead to the development of "usable knowledge" (Lagemann, 2002). Design-based research (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992) is an emerging paradigm for the study of learning in context through the systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools. We argue that design-based research can help create and extend knowledge about developing, enacting, and sustaining innovative learning environments. References: |
A decade later, researchers interested in studying learning in naturalistic settings (inspired by Brown's approach) began a concerted effort to define the standards and argue the legitimacy of this type of research through design. For example, the Design-Based Research Collective defined design-based research (DBR) as "an emerging paradigm for the study of learning in context, through the systematic design and study of instructional strategies and tools" (DBRC, 2003, p. 5). References: |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 4
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
The study of learning derives from essentially two sources.Because learning involves the acquisition of knowledge, the first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things.... The second source in which modern learning theory is rooted concerns the nature and representation of mental life. References: |
The study of learning derives from essentially two sources. The first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things. The second source concerns the nature and representation of mental life.
|
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 5
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
In examining the history of the visionary companies, we were struck by how often they made some of their best moves not by detailed strategic planning, but rather by experimentation, trial and error, opportunism, and--quite literally--accident. What looks in hindsight like a brilliant strategy was often the residual result of opportunistic experimentation and "purposeful accidents." References: |
When I look back on the decisions I've made, it's clear that I made some of my best choices not through a thorough analytical investigation of my options, but instead by trial and error and, often, simply by accident. The somewhat random aspect of my success or failure is, at the same time, both encouraging and scary. |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 6
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
A communication channel is the means by which messages get from one individual to another.The nature of the information-exchange relationship between a pair of individuals determines the conditions under which a source will or will not transmit the innovation to the receiver and the effect of such a transfer. References: |
Rogers places great importance on the sharing of information about an innovation. He defines a communication channel as "the means by which messages get from one individual to another" (p. 18). He describes two general media channels of communication: mass media and interpersonal; and two scopes of channels: localite and cosmopolite. References: |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 7
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
The philosophical position known as constructivism views knowledge as a human construction. The various perspectives within constructivismare based on the premise that knowledge is not part of an objective, external reality that is separate from the individual. Instead, human knowledge, whether the bodies of content in public disciplines (such as mathematics or sociology) or knowledge of the individual learner, is a human construction. References: |
Does knowledge exist outside of, or separate from, the individual who knows? Constructivists argue that "... human knowledge, whether the bodies of content in public disciplines (such as mathematics or sociology) or knowledge of the individual learner, is a human construction." References: |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 8
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
Precedent is also described as "the unique knowledge embedded in a known design" (Oxman, 1994, p. 146), meaning, in everyday terms, that the memory of having experienced an existing design is a memory that contains special forms of knowledge... At heart, the design case is a description of a real artifact or experience that has been intentionally designed. A case may be as minimal as an individual image of a commercial product, a building, an advertisement, a classroom or anything else designed; these forms of design cases appear in hundreds of magazines, design annuals, competition catalogs, display books, web portfolios and similar venues. References: Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1 (1), 1-8. |
According to Boling (2010, p. 2), "At heart, the design case is a description of a real artifact or experience that has been intentionally designed." She explains that the primary goal of a design case is to provide designers with precedent--defined by Oxman as "the unique knowledge embedded in a known design" (as quoted in Boling, 2010, p. 2). She further explains that expert designers are aware of numerous precedents which may be helpful in future designs. For example, educational game designers can view unique cases of game designs as precedents, which, in turn, may facilitate design of new games. References: Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1 (1), 1-8. |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 9
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
The study of learning derives from essentially two sources.Because learning involves the acquisition of knowledge, the first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things.... The second source in which modern learning theory is rooted concerns the nature and representation of mental life. References: |
Driscoll (2000) concludes that "the study of learning derives from essentially two sources... The first concerns the nature of knowledge and how we come to know things.... The second ... concerns the nature and representation of mental life" (p. 10).
|
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
Hints
Item 10
In the case below, the original source material is given along with a sample of student work. Determine the type of plagiarism by clicking the appropriate radio button.
|
Original Source Material |
Student Version |
|
It is helpful to think in terms of two basic kinds of change: piecemeal and systemic. Piecemeal change leaves the structure of a system unchanged. It often involves finding better ways to meet the same needs, such as using an analogy to help your students learn the science concepts you taught in an otherwise similar manner last year. In contrast, systemic change entails modifying the structure of a system, usually in response to new needs. References: |
Reiguleth (1999) mentions two different kinds of change: Piecemeal and Systemic change. Systemic change entails modifying the structure of a system, in order to meet new needs. In contrast, piecemeal change leaves the structure of a system unchanged. For example, new innovations instead of traditional methods could be used to engage students in learning. |
Which of the following is true for the Student Version above?
Word-for-Word plagiarism
Paraphrasing plagiarism
This is not plagiarism
In: Psychology
The Relationship Between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations Introduction The relationship between government agencies and nonprofit organizations is the focus of increasing attention within the public administration community. Practitioners recognize that the organization of public services relies to a substantial degree upon what we have come to call third-party government (Salamon, 1981). Nongovernmental actors not only deliver government-funded services but also actively participate throughout the policy process. Often the third-party is a nonprofit organization. In the last decade or so, researchers from a variety of disciplines have examined this evolutionary development more closely (Kramer, 1981; Salamon and Abramson, 1982; Salamon, 1987; Gronbjerg, 1987; Ostrander, Langton, and Van Til, 1987; Lipsky and Smith, 1989-90; Wolch, 1990; Provan and Milward, 1990). A 1989 National Academy of Public Administration report, Privatization: The Challenge to Public Management, urged that public administrators and policymakers in general acknowledge the significant management challenges posed by government programs that involve such "tools of government action" as contracting out, loan guarantees, government sponsored enterprises, and vouchers (Salamon, 1989b). Within this context of extensive sharing of responsibility between governmental and nongovernmental actors for operating public programs, the government/nonprofit relationship is widely acknowledged as a critical element. The shrinking capacity of public organizations, increasing demand for services, and continuing trend toward decentralized program delivery underscore its importance. At the same time, an understanding of the precise character of the state/voluntary sector relationship and the degree of interdependence between public agencies and nonprofit organizations requires additional empirical investigation. Research findings reported here describe that relationship in terms of the dependence of public agencies and nonprofit organizations on each other for resources and their resulting interdependence. The framework laid out in this study emerged from a synthesis of three sources: (1) the perspectives of organization theory, especially power/dependence and resource dependence, and bureaucratic politics; (2) a series of exploratory model refinement interviews with four public-sector and five nonprofit- sector participants in an earlier policy study (Dawes and Saidel, 1988); and (3) a field pretest in June-July 1989, with 20 state agency and 20 nonprofit administrators from four service areas. Emerson's (1962) theory of reciprocal power-dependence relations provided the building blocks for the framework used in this research. He reasoned that the power of A over B is equal to, and based upon, the dependence of B upon A. Recognizing the reciprocity of social relations, we can represent a power-dependence relation as a pair of equations: Pab = Dba Pba = Dab (Emerson, 1962, p. 33). For the purposes of this study, if a becomes s for state agencies and b becomes n for nonprofit organizations, the equations can be read as follows: The power of state agencies over nonprofit organizations equals the dependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources (Psn = Dns). The power of nonprofit organizations over state agencies equals the dependence of state agencies on nonprofit organizations for resources (Pns = Dsn). The use of Dsn and Dns yields two measures of resource dependence that, taken together, delineate a current picture of resource interdependence between state and nonprofit organizations. What resources, common across service areas, are exchanged between state government bureaucracies and public benefit nonprofit organizations? Resources that flow from state agencies to nonprofit organizations are: revenues; information, including expertise and technical assistance; political support and legitimacy, in the sense of external validation (Galaskiewicz, 1985); and access to the nonlegislative policy process (Rourke, 1984). Nonprofit organizations supply their service-delivery capacity, information, political support, and legitimacy to state agencies. Nonprofit organization service-delivery capacity was documented as a substantial resource to government in the Urban Institute Nonprofit Sector Project finding that "nonprofit organizations actually deliver a larger share of the services government finances than do government agencies themselves" (Salamon, 1987, p. 30). Three resource dependence criteria or dimensions of dependence (Bacharach and Lawler, 1981) can be specified: (1) the importance of the resource; (2) the availability of alternatives; and (3) the ability to compel provision of the resource. The importance, or essentiality of a resource to an organization, consists of the organization's need for the resource in order to function, to operate, or to deliver programs or services (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964; Jacobs, 1974; Thompson, 1967; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Brudney, 1978; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, and Kruytbosch, 1980; Provan and Skinner, 1989). The importance dimension incorporates the elements of substitutability and criticality or the organization's ability to forego the resource and still continue operating (Jacobs, 1974; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Aldrich, 1979). The availability of the same resource from another supplier is widely acknowledged as a dimension of dependence (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964; Thompson, 1967; Jacobs, 1974; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Brudney, 1978; Provan and Skinner, 1989). Cook's explanation is representative: "To the extent that alternative sources are available to an organization in an exchange network, dependence is less..." (1977, p. 66). Insofar as organization A can compel, pressure, or force organization B to provide needed resources, A is less dependent on B. In contrast to the availability of alternatives, this dimension appears much less frequently in the literature (Blau, 1964; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, and Kruytbosch, 1980). In the context of third-party government research, the ability to compel provision of a resource includes statutory and regulatory sanctions as well as the use of less formal kinds of pressure to force resource provision. This expanded scope is appropriate to the complex political environment within which inter-organizational resource exchanges occur across sectors. In order to determine the degree of reciprocal dependence, it is important to examine both state and non-profit administrators with respect to the level of dependence each group perceives both state and non-profits have on each other. While the literature has provided a framework for the factors that need investigation, it has not provided any evidence of actual differences in dependence (or the perception of dependence), either generally or in the case of specific service areas. The present study examined four key variables. The first was the general dependence of nonprofit organizations on states (the importance of the resource obtained from the state, the availability of the resource from alternative sources, and the ability to compel the provision of the resource from the state). The second was the general dependence of the state on nonprofit organizations (the importance of the resource obtained from the nonprofit organization, the availability of the resource from alternative sources, and the ability to compel the provision of the resource from the nonprofit organizations). These were derived from the work of Bacharach and Lawler (1981). The third was dependence of the state on the non-profit organizations by service sector (arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services). The fourth was dependence of nonprofit organizations on the state by service sector (arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services). The following hypotheses characterized the specific expectations of the study: [Itemize All Hypotheses Here] Method Sample The population of interest in this study was 1) nonprofit organizations in the State of New York in one of the designated service areas, and 2) divisions within the state system in each of the same service areas. An explanation of the study was sent to each sector (nonprofit and state) requesting responses from interested parties. The final sample of 80 nonprofit organizations consisted of a random sample of 20 organizations in each of the four service areas – arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human service areas – from those who indicated interest. The sample from the state was obtained by randomly selecting 20 persons from the same four service sectors from those who responded with interest. Tables 1 and 2, below, present the principle descriptive categorical and continuous information, respectively, for the two final groups: [Insert Table 1 Here] [Insert Table 2 Here] Measures To measure reciprocal resource dependence of state agencies and nonprofit organizations, 14 Likert-type scales were constructed with a number of items to which the respondent indicated intensity of agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale. Response categories were strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, strongly agree. The conceptual anchors of each scale were (1) independence and (6) dependence. That is, higher scores represented greater dependence in the area being assessed. Three scales (importance, alternative availability, and pressure) measured the dependence of state agencies on nonprofit organizations for resources. Three parallel scales measured the same dimensions for resource dependence in the other direction, that is, the dependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources. Items were predominantly attitudinal; some were behavioral. The following items are samples from the importance, alternative availability, and pressure scales, respectively. S1. State agencies often use ideas from nonprofit organizations to formulate policy recommendations. N1. Nonprofit organizations often use ideas from state agencies lO formulate policy recommendations. S2.There are certainly other supporters of agency interests as valuable as nonprofit organizations. N2. There are certainly other supporters of nonprofit organizations' interests as valuable as state agencies. S3.Agencies are in no position to force nonprofit organizations to implement their programs. N3. Nonprofit organizations are in no position to force agencies to fund their programs. Scale scores were the average of the item scores. Table 3 reports reliability results for the six scales. Alpha reliability coefficients are listed in bold-face type. Discriminant validity may be measured by the inter-scale correlation coefficients shown on the diagonal in that table. Table 3: Reliabilities of State and Nonprofit Scales Scale Reliability State Importance .67 State Alternative Availability .73 State Pressure .63 Nonprofit Importance .70 Nonprofit Alternative Availability .70 Nonprofit Pressure .75 The remaining eight scales were divided, four each for state departments and non-profit agencies, into individual service areas. These were arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services. The first set of four examined dependence of the state departments on nonprofit agencies in the four areas; the second set of four scales assessed the dependence of nonprofits on state agencies in the same four areas. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring state agency dependence on nonprofit agencies became Dsn in the model. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring nonprofit agency dependence on state agencies became Dns. These reciprocal resource flows, understood together, became the basis for a g e n e r a l model of resource dependence between sectors. Design The design of the study was [Enter the Study Design Here]. The particular strengths of this design are [Enter the Design Strengths Here]. The design is weak in the areas of [Enter the Design Weaknesses Here]. Procedure The total number of study participants was 153: 80 nonprofit and 73 state agency managers. Public-sector respondents were 20 people, including commissioners, from each of the 4 state agencies and executive directors from 20 nonprofit organizations in each of the service areas. Of the 80 nonprofit agency respondents, 14 were top-level managers other than the executive director. All nonprofit and some state agency respondents participated in two-part, on-site interviews, including a self-administered survey completed immediately and an interview with demographic and open-ended questions. State agency commissioners designated two additional executive administrators for the research interview, and they, in turn, identified 17 other managers to receive a mailed survey.
PADM 580
Assignment 1
b) What is/are the dependent variables in your study? (5 points)
In: Statistics and Probability
The Relationship Between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations Introduction The relationship between government agencies and nonprofit organizations is the focus of increasing attention within the public administration community. Practitioners recognize that the organization of public services relies to a substantial degree upon what we have come to call third-party government (Salamon, 1981). Nongovernmental actors not only deliver government-funded services but also actively participate throughout the policy process. Often the third-party is a nonprofit organization. In the last decade or so, researchers from a variety of disciplines have examined this evolutionary development more closely (Kramer, 1981; Salamon and Abramson, 1982; Salamon, 1987; Gronbjerg, 1987; Ostrander, Langton, and Van Til, 1987; Lipsky and Smith, 1989-90; Wolch, 1990; Provan and Milward, 1990). A 1989 National Academy of Public Administration report, Privatization: The Challenge to Public Management, urged that public administrators and policymakers in general acknowledge the significant management challenges posed by government programs that involve such "tools of government action" as contracting out, loan guarantees, government sponsored enterprises, and vouchers (Salamon, 1989b). Within this context of extensive sharing of responsibility between governmental and nongovernmental actors for operating public programs, the government/nonprofit relationship is widely acknowledged as a critical element. The shrinking capacity of public organizations, increasing demand for services, and continuing trend toward decentralized program delivery underscore its importance. At the same time, an understanding of the precise character of the state/voluntary sector relationship and the degree of interdependence between public agencies and nonprofit organizations requires additional empirical investigation. Research findings reported here describe that relationship in terms of the dependence of public agencies and nonprofit organizations on each other for resources and their resulting interdependence. The framework laid out in this study emerged from a synthesis of three sources: (1) the perspectives of organization theory, especially power/dependence and resource dependence, and bureaucratic politics; (2) a series of exploratory model refinement interviews with four public-sector and five nonprofit- sector participants in an earlier policy study (Dawes and Saidel, 1988); and (3) a field pretest in June-July 1989, with 20 state agency and 20 nonprofit administrators from four service areas. Emerson's (1962) theory of reciprocal power-dependence relations provided the building blocks for the framework used in this research. He reasoned that the power of A over B is equal to, and based upon, the dependence of B upon A. Recognizing the reciprocity of social relations, we can represent a power-dependence relation as a pair of equations: Pab = Dba Pba = Dab (Emerson, 1962, p. 33). For the purposes of this study, if a becomes s for state agencies and b becomes n for nonprofit organizations, the equations can be read as follows: The power of state agencies over nonprofit organizations equals the dependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources (Psn = Dns). The power of nonprofit organizations over state agencies equals the dependence of state agencies on nonprofit organizations for resources (Pns = Dsn). The use of Dsn and Dns yields two measures of resource dependence that, taken together, delineate a current picture of resource interdependence between state and nonprofit organizations. What resources, common across service areas, are exchanged between state government bureaucracies and public benefit nonprofit organizations? Resources that flow from state agencies to nonprofit organizations are: revenues; information, including expertise and technical assistance; political support and legitimacy, in the sense of external validation (Galaskiewicz, 1985); and access to the nonlegislative policy process (Rourke, 1984). Nonprofit organizations supply their service-delivery capacity, information, political support, and legitimacy to state agencies. Nonprofit organization service-delivery capacity was documented as a substantial resource to government in the Urban Institute Nonprofit Sector Project finding that "nonprofit organizations actually deliver a larger share of the services government finances than do government agencies themselves" (Salamon, 1987, p. 30). Three resource dependence criteria or dimensions of dependence (Bacharach and Lawler, 1981) can be specified: (1) the importance of the resource; (2) the availability of alternatives; and (3) the ability to compel provision of the resource. The importance, or essentiality of a resource to an organization, consists of the organization's need for the resource in order to function, to operate, or to deliver programs or services (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964; Jacobs, 1974; Thompson, 1967; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Brudney, 1978; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, and Kruytbosch, 1980; Provan and Skinner, 1989). The importance dimension incorporates the elements of substitutability and criticality or the organization's ability to forego the resource and still continue operating (Jacobs, 1974; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Aldrich, 1979). The availability of the same resource from another supplier is widely acknowledged as a dimension of dependence (Levine and White, 1961; Emerson, 1962; Blau, 1964; Thompson, 1967; Jacobs, 1974; Cook, 1977; Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; Brudney, 1978; Provan and Skinner, 1989). Cook's explanation is representative: "To the extent that alternative sources are available to an organization in an exchange network, dependence is less..." (1977, p. 66). Insofar as organization A can compel, pressure, or force organization B to provide needed resources, A is less dependent on B. In contrast to the availability of alternatives, this dimension appears much less frequently in the literature (Blau, 1964; Aldrich, 1979; Provan, Beyer, and Kruytbosch, 1980). In the context of third-party government research, the ability to compel provision of a resource includes statutory and regulatory sanctions as well as the use of less formal kinds of pressure to force resource provision. This expanded scope is appropriate to the complex political environment within which inter-organizational resource exchanges occur across sectors. In order to determine the degree of reciprocal dependence, it is important to examine both state and non-profit administrators with respect to the level of dependence each group perceives both state and non-profits have on each other. While the literature has provided a framework for the factors that need investigation, it has not provided any evidence of actual differences in dependence (or the perception of dependence), either generally or in the case of specific service areas. The present study examined four key variables. The first was the general dependence of nonprofit organizations on states (the importance of the resource obtained from the state, the availability of the resource from alternative sources, and the ability to compel the provision of the resource from the state). The second was the general dependence of the state on nonprofit organizations (the importance of the resource obtained from the nonprofit organization, the availability of the resource from alternative sources, and the ability to compel the provision of the resource from the nonprofit organizations). These were derived from the work of Bacharach and Lawler (1981). The third was dependence of the state on the non-profit organizations by service sector (arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services). The fourth was dependence of nonprofit organizations on the state by service sector (arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services). The following hypotheses characterized the specific expectations of the study: [Itemize All Hypotheses Here] Method Sample The population of interest in this study was 1) nonprofit organizations in the State of New York in one of the designated service areas, and 2) divisions within the state system in each of the same service areas. An explanation of the study was sent to each sector (nonprofit and state) requesting responses from interested parties. The final sample of 80 nonprofit organizations consisted of a random sample of 20 organizations in each of the four service areas – arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human service areas – from those who indicated interest. The sample from the state was obtained by randomly selecting 20 persons from the same four service sectors from those who responded with interest. Tables 1 and 2, below, present the principle descriptive categorical and continuous information, respectively, for the two final groups: [Insert Table 1 Here] [Insert Table 2 Here] Measures To measure reciprocal resource dependence of state agencies and nonprofit organizations, 14 Likert-type scales were constructed with a number of items to which the respondent indicated intensity of agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale. Response categories were strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, strongly agree. The conceptual anchors of each scale were (1) independence and (6) dependence. That is, higher scores represented greater dependence in the area being assessed. Three scales (importance, alternative availability, and pressure) measured the dependence of state agencies on nonprofit organizations for resources. Three parallel scales measured the same dimensions for resource dependence in the other direction, that is, the dependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources. Items were predominantly attitudinal; some were behavioral. The following items are samples from the importance, alternative availability, and pressure scales, respectively. S1. State agencies often use ideas from nonprofit organizations to formulate policy recommendations. N1. Nonprofit organizations often use ideas from state agencies lO formulate policy recommendations. S2.There are certainly other supporters of agency interests as valuable as nonprofit organizations. N2. There are certainly other supporters of nonprofit organizations' interests as valuable as state agencies. S3.Agencies are in no position to force nonprofit organizations to implement their programs. N3. Nonprofit organizations are in no position to force agencies to fund their programs. Scale scores were the average of the item scores. Table 3 reports reliability results for the six scales. Alpha reliability coefficients are listed in bold-face type. Discriminant validity may be measured by the inter-scale correlation coefficients shown on the diagonal in that table. Table 3: Reliabilities of State and Nonprofit Scales Scale Reliability State Importance .67 State Alternative Availability .73 State Pressure .63 Nonprofit Importance .70 Nonprofit Alternative Availability .70 Nonprofit Pressure .75 The remaining eight scales were divided, four each for state departments and non-profit agencies, into individual service areas. These were arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services. The first set of four examined dependence of the state departments on nonprofit agencies in the four areas; the second set of four scales assessed the dependence of nonprofits on state agencies in the same four areas. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring state agency dependence on nonprofit agencies became Dsn in the model. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring nonprofit agency dependence on state agencies became Dns. These reciprocal resource flows, understood together, became the basis for a g e n e r a l model of resource dependence between sectors. Design The design of the study was [Enter the Study Design Here]. The particular strengths of this design are [Enter the Design Strengths Here]. The design is weak in the areas of [Enter the Design Weaknesses Here]. Procedure The total number of study participants was 153: 80 nonprofit and 73 state agency managers. Public-sector respondents were 20 people, including commissioners, from each of the 4 state agencies and executive directors from 20 nonprofit organizations in each of the service areas. Of the 80 nonprofit agency respondents, 14 were top-level managers other than the executive director. All nonprofit and some state agency respondents participated in two-part, on-site interviews, including a self-administered survey completed immediately and an interview with demographic and open-ended questions. State agency commissioners designated two additional executive administrators for the research interview, and they, in turn, identified 17 other managers to receive a mailed survey.
In: Statistics and Probability
“Eloquent. Extraordinary. Timeless. Paradigm-shifting. Classic. Half a century after it first appeared, Leonard Read’s ‘I, Pencil’ still evokes such adjectives of praise. Rightfully so, for this little essay opens eyes and minds among people of all ages. Many first-time readers never see the world quite the same again.” ~ Lawrence W. Reed
Hundreds of thousands of Americans of all ages continue to enjoy this simple and beautiful explanation of the miracle of the “invisible hand” by following the production of an ordinary pencil. Read shows that none of us knows enough to plan the creative actions and decisions of others.
Leonard E. Read (1898–1983) established the Foundation for Economic Education in 1946. For the next 37 years he served as FEE’s president and labored tirelessly to promote and advance liberty. He was a natural leader who, at a crucial moment in American history, roused the forces defending individual freedom and private property.
His life is a testament to the power of ideas. As President Ronald Reagan wrote: “Our nation and her people have been vastly enriched by his devotion to the cause of freedom, and generations to come will look to Leonard Read for inspiration.”
Read was the author of 29 books and hundreds of essays. “I, Pencil,” his most famous essay, was first published in 1958. Although a few of the manufacturing details and place names have changed, the principles endure.
***
By Lawrence W. Reed
Eloquent. Extraordinary. Timeless. Paradigm-shifting. Classic. Six decades after it first appeared, Leonard Read’s “I, Pencil” evokes such adjectives of praise. Rightfully so, for this little essay opens eyes and minds among people of all ages. Many first-time readers never see the world quite the same again.
Ideas are most powerful when they’re wrapped in a compelling story. Leonard’s main point—economies can hardly be “planned” when not one soul possesses all the know-how and skills to produce a simple pencil—unfolds in the enchanting words of a pencil itself. Leonard could have written “I, Car” or “I, Airplane,” but choosing those more complex items would have muted the message. No one person—repeat, no one, no matter how smartor how many degrees follow his name—could create from scratch a small, everyday pencil, let alone a car or an airplane.
This is a message that humbles the high and mighty. It pricks the inflated egos of those who think they know how to mind everybody else’s business. It explains in plain language why central planning is an exercise in arrogance and futility, or what Nobel laureate and Austrian economist F. A. Hayek aptly termed “the pretence of knowledge.”
Indeed, a major influence on Read’s thinking in this regard was Hayek’s famous 1945 article, “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” In demolishing the spurious claims of the socialists of the day, Hayek wrote,“This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not. It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals.”
Maximilien Robespierre is said to have blessed the horrific French Revolution with this chilling declaration: “On ne saurait pas faire une omelette sans casser des oeufs.” Translation: “One can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking eggs.” A consummate statist who worked tirelessly to plan the lives of others, he would become the architect of the Revolution’s bloodiest phase—the Reign of Terror of 1793–94.
Robespierre and his guillotine broke eggs by the thousands in a vain effort to impose a utopian society with government planners at the top and everybody else at the bottom. That French experience is but one example in a disturbingly familiar pattern. Call them what you will—socialists, interventionists, collectivists, statists—history is littered with their presumptuous plans for rearranging society to fit their vision of the common good, plans that always fail as they kill or impoverish other people in the process. If socialism ever earns a final epitaph, it will be this: Here lies a contrivance engineered by know-it-alls who broke eggs with abandon but never, ever created an omelet.
None of the Robespierres of the world knew how to make a pencil, yet they wanted to remake entire societies. How utterly preposterous, and mournfully tragic! But we will miss a large implication of Leonard Read’s message if we assume it aims only at the tyrants whose names we all know. The lesson of “I, Pencil” is not that error begins when the planners plan big. It begins the moment one tosses humility aside, assumes he knows the unknowable, and employs the force of the State against peaceful individuals. That’s not just a national disease. It can be very local indeed.
In our midst are people who think that if only they had government power on their side, they could pick tomorrow’s winners and losers in the marketplace, set prices or rents where they ought to be, decide which forms of energy should power our homes and cars, and choose which industries should survive and which should die. They should stop for a few moments and learn a little humility from a lowly writing implement.
While “I, Pencil” shoots down the baseless expectations for central planning, it provides a supremely uplifting perspective of the individual. Guided by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of prices, property, profits, and incentives, free people accomplish economic miracles of which socialist theoreticians can only dream. As the interests of countless individuals from around the world converge to produce pencils without a single “master mind,” so do they also come together in free markets to feed, clothe, house, educate, and entertain hundreds of millions of people at ever higher levels. With great pride, FEE publishes this new edition of “I, Pencil." Someday there will be a centennial edition, maybe even a millennial one. This essay is truly one for the ages.
—Lawrence W. Reed, President
Foundation for Economic Education
***
By Leonard E. Read
I am a lead pencil—the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write.
Writing is both my vocation and my avocation; that’s all I do.
You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with, my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery —more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious attitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, the wise G. K. Chesterton observed, “We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders.”
I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that’s too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple.
Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn’t it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.
Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye—there’s some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.
Just as you cannot trace your family tree back very far, so is it impossible for me to name and explain all my antecedents. But I would like to suggest enough of them to impress upon you the richness and complexity of my background.
My family tree begins with what in fact is a tree, a cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon. Now contemplate all the saws and trucks and rope and the countless other gear used in harvesting and carting the cedar logs to the railroad siding. Think of all the persons and the numberless skills that went into their fabrication: the mining of ore, the making of steel and its refinement into saws, axes, motors; the growing of hemp and bringing it through all the stages to heavy and strong rope; the logging camps with their beds and mess halls, the cookery and the raising of all the foods. Why, untold thousands of persons had a hand in every cup of coffee the loggers drink!
The logs are shipped to a mill in San Leandro, California. Can you imagine the individuals who make flat cars and rails and railroad engines and who construct and install the communication systems incidental thereto? These legions are among my antecedents.
Consider the millwork in San Leandro. The cedar logs are cut into small, pencil-length slats less than one-fourth of an inch in thickness. These are kiln dried and then tinted for the same reason women put rouge on their faces. People prefer that I look pretty, not a pallid white. The slats are waxed and kiln dried again. How many skills went into the making of the tint and the kilns, into supplying the heat, the light and power, the belts, motors, and all the other things a mill requires? Sweepers in the mill among my ancestors? Yes, and included are the men who poured the concrete for the dam of a Pacific Gas & Electric Company hydroplant which supplies the mill’s power!
Don’t overlook the ancestors present and distant who have a hand in transporting sixty carloads of slats across the nation.
Once in the pencil factory—$4,000,000 in machinery and building, all capital accumulated by thrifty and saving parents of mine—each slat is given eight grooves by a complex machine, after which another machine lays leads in every other slat, applies glue, and places another slat atop—a lead sandwich, so to speak. Seven brothers and I are mechanically carved from this “wood-clinched” sandwich.
My “lead” itself—it contains no lead at all—is complex. The graphite is mined in Ceylon [Sri Lanka]. Consider these miners and those who make their many tools and the makers of the paper sacks in which the graphite is shipped and those who make the string that ties the sacks and those who put them aboard ships and those who make the ships. Even the lighthouse keepers along the way assisted in my birth—and the harbor pilots.
The graphite is mixed with clay from Mississippi in which ammonium hydroxide is used in the refining process. Then wetting agents are added such as sulfonated tallow—animal fats chemically reacted with sulfuric acid. After passing through numerous machines, the mixture finally appears as endless extrusions—as from a sausage grinder—cut to size, dried, and baked for several hours at 1,850 degrees Fahrenheit. To increase their strength and smoothness the leads are then treated with a hot mixture which includes candelilla wax from Mexico, paraffin wax, and hydrogenated natural fats.
My cedar receives six coats of lacquer. Do you know all the ingredients of lacquer? Who would think that the growers of castor beans and the refiners of castor oil are a part of it? They are. Why, even the processes by which the lacquer is made a beautiful yellow involve the skills of more persons than one can enumerate!
Observe the labeling. That’s a film formed by applying heat to carbon black mixed with resins. How do you make resins and what, pray, is carbon black?
My bit of metal—the ferrule—is brass. Think of all the persons who mine zinc and copper and those who have the skills to make shiny sheet brass from these products of nature. Those black rings on my ferrule are black nickel. What is black nickel and how is it applied? The complete story of why the center of my ferrule has no black nickel on it would take pages to explain.
Then there’s my crowning glory, inelegantly referred to in the trade as “the plug,” the part man uses to erase the errors he makes with me. An ingredient called “factice” is what does the erasing. It is a rubber-like product made by reacting rapeseed oil from the Dutch East Indies [Indonesia] with sulfur chloride. Rubber, contrary to the common notion, is only for binding purposes. Then, too, there are numerous vulcanizing and accelerating agents. The pumice comes from Italy; and the pigment which gives “the plug” its color is cadmium sulfide.
Does anyone wish to challenge my earlier assertion that no single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me?
Actually, millions of human beings have had a hand in my creation, no one of whom even knows more than a very few of the others. Now, you may say that I go too far in relating the picker of a coffee berry in far-off Brazil and food growers elsewhere to my creation; that this is an extreme position. I shall stand by my claim. There isn’t a single person in all these millions, including the president of the pencil company, who contributes more than a tiny, infinitesimal bit of know-how. From the standpoint of know-how the only difference between the miner of graphite in Ceylon and the logger in Oregon is in the type of know-how. Neither the miner nor the logger can be dispensed with, any more than can the chemist at the factory or the worker in the oil field—paraffin being a by-product of petroleum.
Here is an astounding fact: Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me. Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade. Indeed, there are some among this vast multitude who never saw a pencil nor would they know how to use one. Their motivation is other than me. Perhaps it is something like this: Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items.
There is a fact still more astounding: The absence of a master mind, of anyone dictating or forcibly directing these countless actions which bring me into being. No trace of such a person can be found. Instead, we find the Invisible Hand at work. This is the mystery to which I earlier referred.
It has been said that “only God can make a tree.” Why do we agree with this? Isn’t it because we realize that we ourselves could not make one? Indeed, can we even describe a tree? We cannot, except in superficial terms. We can say, for instance, that a certain molecular configuration manifests itself as a tree. But what mind is there among men that could even record, let alone direct, the constant changes in molecules that transpire in the life span of a tree? Such a feat is utterly unthinkable!
I, Pencil, am a complex combination of miracles: a tree, zinc, copper, graphite, and so on. But to these miracles which manifest themselves in Nature an even more extraordinary miracle has been added: the configuration of creative human energies—millions of tiny know-hows configurating naturally and spontaneously in response to human necessity and desire and in the absence of any human masterminding! Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me. Man can no more direct these millions of know-hows to bring me into being than he can put molecules together to create a tree.
The above is what I meant when writing, “If you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing.” For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand— that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive master-minding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith.
Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn’t know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation’s mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental “masterminding.”
If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men and women can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it’s all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine or to tens of thousands of other things. Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person’s home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one’s range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!
The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society’s legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.
***
By Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, 1976
Leonard Read’s delightful story, “I, Pencil,” has become a classic, and deservedly so. I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith’s invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek’s emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that “will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”
We used Leonard’s story in our television show, “Free to Choose,” and in the accompanying book of the same title to illustrate “the power of the market” (the title of both the first segment of the TV show and of chapter one of the book). We summarized the story and then went on to say:
“None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil.
“It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given. These people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice different religions, may even hate one another—yet none of these differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil. How did it happen? Adam Smith gave us the answer two hundred years ago.”
“I, Pencil” is a typical Leonard Read product: imaginative, simple yet subtle, breathing the love of freedom that imbued everything Leonard wrote or did. As in the rest of his work, he was not trying to tell people what to do or how to conduct themselves. He was simply trying to enhance individuals’ understanding of themselves and of the system they live in.
That was his basic credo and one that he stuck to consistently during his long period of service to the public—not public service in the sense of government service. Whatever the pressure, he stuck to his guns, refusing to compromise his principles. That was why he was so effective in keeping alive, in the early days, and then spreading the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government.
In: Economics
In: Nursing
Experiment 2: Using the Secondary Standard to Determine the Concentration of an Acid
1. In an Erlenmeyer flask, add 25 mL of Unknown #1 concentration of acetic acid (CH3COOH) and 2 drops of phenolphthalein indicator.
2. Coarse Titration:
(a) Take a burette from the Containers shelf and place it on the workbench. Fill the burette with 50 mL of the standardized sodium hydroxide solution. Record the initial burette reading. Place the Erlenmeyer flask on the lower half of the burette.
(b) Perform a coarse titration, adding large increments of the sodium hydroxide solution from the burette by pressing and holding the black knob at the bottom of the burette. Each time you add the sodium hydroxide solution, check the volume remaining in the burette. As the sodium hydroxide is added to the acetic acid solution the pH increases. Watch for a change of the phenolphthalein color in the Erlenmeyer flask. The pink color will appear in Erlenmeyer flask when the endpoint is either reached or crossed. Record the burette volume at which this occurs.
(c) Place the Erlenmeyer flask and the burette in the recycling bin.
3. Fine Titration:
(a) Set up the tiration as before: (i) An Erlenmeyer flask filled with 25 mL of unknown #1 concentration of acetic acid and 2 drops of phenolphthalein indicator. (ii) A burette filled with 50 mL of the standardized sodium hydroxide solution. Record the initial burette reading. (iii) Place the Erlenmeyer flask on the lower half of the burette.
(b) Click and hold the black knob of the burette to quickly add enough standard sodium hydroxide solution to just get into the range of the coarse titration: 1 mL BEFORE the pink endpoint. This is near, but not yet at, the titration's endpoint.
(c) Add sodium hydroxide solution in small increments, down to one drop at a time, record the volume of the pink endpoint.
(d) Place the Erlenmeyer flask and the burette in the recycling bin.
4. Repeat the titration two more times for a total of three
trials. Use 30mL of acetic acid for trial 2 and 35mL for trial 3.
Calculate the acid concentration of each trial.
[If you run out of NaOH, simply prepare a second solution as
described in step 2 of Exp. 1. You don’t need to standardize it a
second time. Assume the standardized concentration is the same as
before.]
Need help with the following!
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
a) Volume of acid (mL) 25.1mL 30.1mL 35.1mL
b) Volume of NaOH titrated (mL) _____ _____ _____
c) Moles of NaOH titrated _____ _____ _____
d) Moles of acid _____ _____ _____
e) Concentration of acid (M) _____ _____ _____
f) Average acid concentration (M) _____
Using your Trial 1 data, show you work for calculating each of the following:
Moles of NaOH titrated
Moles of acid
Concentration of acid
Questions
1. Similar to other acids you've encountered in this class (HCl, HNO3, etc.), benzoic acid is monoprotic (HA), meaning that only one of its hydrogens dissociates in water. With this in mind, write the net ionic equation for the reaction performed during this titration (as discussed in lecture).
2. After dissolving the acid with water, a student noticed some undissolved solid, but continued with the titration as instructed by the procedure. He titrated until the pink color persisted for 30 seconds and recorded the volume of titrant required. Preparing for the second determination, he set the reaction solution aside and added some more NaOH to the buret. He was about to pour the reaction solution down the drain, so he could rinse and reuse the flask, when he saw that the pink color had disappeared!
a) What happened?
b) What can the student do to correct this error and salvage this trial, so he doesn't have to redo it? What corrections or modifications will have to be made to his recorded data?
3. Another student began adding titrant to the acid solution, but stopped when she suddenly realized that she forgot to add the 3 drops of phenolphthalein. When she did, the solution immediately turned dark red!
a) What happened?
b) What can the student do to correct this error and salvage this trial, so she doesn't have to redo it? What corrections or modifications will have to be made to her recorded data?
In: Chemistry
Paraphrase this answers as these are all over the internet:::
1) China benefited the most for imposing an export quota on rare earth metals. China was the leading producer of rare earth metals. China set the import quota in 2010, they stated the reason for imposing the export quota is because some of their mining companies didn’t meet environmental standards. When they did this the prices of the rare earth metals increased outside of China putting foreign manufactures at a cost disadvantage. It was concluded that China did this to give the domestic manufactures a cost advantage so that foreign manufactures would move more production to China, so they could get lower costs of rare earth supplies. It did not increase the quality and environmental standards. China only imposed quotas for their own benefit. They did not put the quotas in place because of their mines not meeting the environmental standards.
/
The groups that benefited the most from China imposing an export quota on rare earth metals are the Chinese manufactures. Yes, the export quota did give Chinese domestic manufacturers a significant cost advantage because it encouraged foreign manufactures to move more production to China so that they could get access to lower cost supplies of rare earth metals. China has cited “environmental” concerns as the reason for the export quotas. That is less implausible than it sounds. Rare earths are dangerous and costly to extract responsibly; China's techniques have been anything but. It has deposits in two regions: Inner Mongolia, where rare earths are a by-product of iron-ore production, and in the south of the country, where they are found in various clays. Although the extraction process in each location differs, they share a need for highly toxic chemicals. Horror stories abound about poisoned water supplies and miners. No, it did not dramatically increase the quality and environmental standards because that was not China’s main goal.
2) ////More limitations have been associated with the production of the metal than the good in it. Depletion and exploitation of the environment is a state that takes long to reinstate to normality. I addition to this, mining of the metal has been associated with toxic acids that are harmful to mankind. Another vital limitation is the increased cost of production. With all this limitations, countries such as Canada, Australia and United States should reconsider environmental conservation to production of the rare metal despite the huge units of production between the 1990s and 2010.
//// I don't believe that Australia, Canada and US should reconsider their environmental restrictions on products of such metal. China is not considering the fact the increasing the mining of earth for these metals will just strain the natural resources that will deplete quickly and soon there will be nothing left for mining. Mining at such high rate will have an adverse effect on the environment as well as humanity will have to bear the eventual effect of this tension. Natural resources are important but it should also be considered that mining these have the potential to have a negative effect on the environment. Potential sources of concern are: air quality, water quality and aquatic ecosystem, soil quality and terrestrial ecosystem, and noise pollution.
3) ////Yes, the alternative to look for substitutes for the rare earth materials is a good move by many of the companies as this would decrease their dependency on one kind of material only. The option for bringing in a substitute will also result in lower production costs as the cost of the rare materials has increased significantly, following export restriction from China. As China accounted for around 80 percent of supply of the rare earth metals, thus it shows that the companies using rare earth material relied heavily on China for the raw material. This also increased the risk of not being able to get the raw material supply in case of any unforeseen exigency. Any natural disaster or any other happening may block the supply of raw material, which would eventually affect the production of various companies. Thus, it is quite appropriate to look from some other substitute, as it will decrease the dependency of providing of raw material from China only and at the same time it will also result in the reduction of cost of manufacturing of the product. /////
As discussed earlier, too many limitations or rather negativities have been associated with the production of the metal. The rectification of these negativities consumes a lot of time.in this case, the option decided to be taken by some of the leading automobile companies can be the best option.to invent an alternative material that will be used in production instead of the use of the rare metal. From the analysis, the alternative chosen by the companies such as Renault, Toyota and tesla is a good solution and more preferable to mining the rare metals.
In: Economics
Sumazrize The Experiment? Into steps
Introduction
The decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in aqueous solution proceeds very slowly. A bottle of 3% hydrogen peroxide sitting on a grocery store shelf is stable for a long period of time. The decomposition takes place according to the reaction below. 2 H2O2(aq) → 2 H2O + O2(g) A number of catalysts can be used to speed up this reaction, including potassium iodide, manganese (IV) oxide, and catalase (an enzyme). If you conduct the catalyzed decomposition of hydrogen peroxide in a closed vessel, you will be able to determine the reaction rate as a function of the pressure increase in the vessel that is caused by the production of oxygen gas. If you vary the initial molar concentration of the H2O2 solution, the rate law for the reaction can also be determined. Finally, by conducting the reaction at different temperatures, the activation energy, Ea, can be calculated.
Procedure
1. Obtain and wear goggles. 2. Connect a Gas Pressure Sensor to a computer interface or handheld. Connect the interface to the computer using the proper cable. 3. Place containers with ~15 mL of 3% H2O2, ~10 mL of 0.5 M KI, and ~50 mL of distilled water in a cold water bath that will chill the three liquids to a temperature that will be very close to 10 °C cooler than room temperature. You will use these cold liquids in your 4th trial run of the reaction. 4. Start the data-collection application. Set up the time-based mode to collect pressure readings every several seconds for five minutes. 5. Set up the experiment apparatus: a. Measure out 45 mL of distilled water into a 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask. b. Measure out 10 mL of 3% H2O2 into the flask. Note: Assuming a 3.0% concentration and a density of 1.00 g/mL, the concentration of H2O2 is 0.88 M. CHEM1112 General Chemistry II Laboratory Spring 20163 Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide. c. Use a temperature probe or thermometer to measure the temperature of the mixture in the flask, and record this value in your data table. d. Carefully place a magnetic stirring bar into the flask. e. Place a magnetic stirrer on the base of a ring stand. Use a utility clamp to fasten the flask to the ring stand as shown in Figure 1. f. Position the flask at the center of the magnetic stirrer. Test the stirrer speed. Select a moderately slow stirring speed that you will use throughout this experiment, and note the position of the control knob. g. Use the plastic tubing with two Luer-lock connectors to connect the two-hole rubber stopper assembly to the Gas Pressure Sensor, as shown in Figure 1. About one-half turn of the fittings will secure the tubing tightly. The valve connected to the stopper should stay closed during this experiment. h. Measure out 5 mL of 0.5 M KI solution into a 10-mL graduated cylinder. Assume that it is at the same temperature as the water and H2O2 mixture. 6. Prepare to start data collection. a. Transfer the 5 mL of KI solution into the flask. b. Tightly seal the flask with the two-hole stopper connected to the Gas Pressure Sensor. c. Ensure that the flask is properly positioned. Turn the stirrer on to the predetermined setting. 7. Start the data collection. Note: If the pressure exceeds 130 kPa, the pressure inside the flask will be too great and the rubber stopper is likely to pop off. Carefully remove the stopper from the flask if the pressure exceeds 130 kPa. 8. When the data collection is complete, carefully remove the stopper from the flask to relieve the pressure. Dispose of the contents of the flask as directed. 9. Examine the pressure vs. time graph. Find the steepest 20-second segment, and calculate the best-fit linear equation for this segment. Write down the slope of the line, m, as the initial rate of the reaction, in kPa/s. 10. Rinse and clean the flask for the next run. 11. Repeat the necessary steps for Runs 2–4. Use the volumes of H2O2, KI, and distilled water shown in the chart below. For Run 4, remember to use the liquids in the cold water bath. Measure and record the temperature of the water bath. Ideally, the CHEM1112 General Chemistry II Laboratory Spring 20164 Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide. temperature of the liquids in Run 4 should be very close to 10 °C cooler than the temperature of Runs 1–3.
In: Chemistry
The manager of High Point Sofa and Chair, a large furniture manufacturer located in North Carolina, is studying the job performance ratings of a sample of 15 electrical repairmen employed by the company. An aptitude test is required by the human resources department to become an electrical repairman. The manager was able to get the score for each repairman in the sample. In addition, he determined which of the repairmen were union members (code = 1) and which were not (code = 0). The sample information is reported below.
| Worker | Job Performance Score | Aptitude Test Score | Union Membership | |||
| Abbott | 58 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Anderson | 53 | 4 | 0 | |||
| Bender | 33 | 10 | 0 | |||
| Bush | 97 | 10 | 0 | |||
| Center | 36 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Coombs | 83 | 7 | 0 | |||
| Eckstine | 67 | 6 | 0 | |||
| Gloss | 84 | 9 | 0 | |||
| Herd | 98 | 9 | 1 | |||
| Householder | 45 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Iori | 97 | 8 | 1 | |||
| Lindstrom | 90 | 6 | 1 | |||
| Mason | 96 | 7 | 1 | |||
| Pierse | 66 | 3 | 1 | |||
| Rohde | 82 | 6 | 1 | |||
1. Use a statistical software package to develop a multiple regression equation using the job performance score as the dependent variable and aptitude test score and union membership as independent variables. (Round your answers to 3 decimal places.)
Performance = ____ + _____ aptitude + _____ union
2. Complete the table. (Round your answers to 3 decimal places.)
|
3. Find the Standard error, R2 and R2(adj).
|
|||||||||||||
4. Complete the ANOVA table
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. How effective are these two variables in explaining the variation in job performance? (Round your answer to 1 decimal place.)
Adjusting for the number of independent variables, these variables explain _____ percent of the variation in performance
6. Compute the test statistic for union membership. (Round your answer to 3 decimal places.)
Value of test statistic _____
7. What is the effect of union membership on job performance?
On average, union membership increases the job performance score by _____
8. If you include an interaction, what is the regression equation? (Negative amounts should be indicated by a minus sign. Round your answers to 2 decimal places.)
Performance = _____ + ______ aptitude + ____ union + ____ x1 x2
9. Complete the following table. (Negative amounts should be indicated by a minus sign. Round your answers to 3 decimal places.)
|
10. Compute the value of the test statistic for the interaction term.
Value of the test statistic ______
In: Statistics and Probability