Companies, communities, families, clubs, and other clumps of humans all have some inherent social dynamics. At a simple level there are leaders and followers, but in reality the lines are rarely as clear as that. Many leaders, with a common example being some founders, have tremendous vision and imagination, but lack the skills to translate that vision into actionable work. Many followers need structure to their efforts, but are dynamic and creative in the execution. Thus, the social dynamic in organizations needs a little more nuance. This is where traditional management hierarchies break down in companies. You may have your SVPs, then your VPs, then your Senior Directors, then your Directors, and so on, but in reality most successful companies don't observe those hierarchies stringently. In many organizations a junior-level employee who has been there for a while can have as much influence and value, if not more, than a brand new SVP. As such, the dream is that we build organizations with crisp reporting lines but in which all employees feel they have the ability to bring their creativity and ideas to logically influence the scope, work, and culture of the organization. Sadly, this is where many organizations run into trouble. It seems to be the same 'ol story time after time: as the organization grows, the divide between the senior leadership and the folks on the ground widens. Water cooler conversations and bar-side grumblings fuel the fire and resentment, frustrations, and resume-editing often sets in. So much of this is avoidable though. Of course, there will always be frustration in any organization: this is part and parcel of people working together. Nothing will be perfect, and it shouldn't befrustration and conflict can often lead to organizations re-pivoting and taking a new approach. I believe though, that there are a lot of relatively simple things we can do to make organizations feel more engaging. Who ate the cake? A. johns wife B. fred C. john D. not enough information
C

(Question)
Think outside the box, whilst inside the box (studio): As this studio is about working with constraints, I thought i'd google 'constraints in filmmaking' and see what comes up. One of the first links was to a journal article by Heidi Philipsen entitled 'Constraints in Film Making Processes Offer an Exercise to the Imagination'. Interestingly enough the first sentence of her article states: "I would like filmmakers interested in thinking "outside the box" to recognize that they can benefit from being placed "inside a box." I wonder if Paul had contemplated this whilst choosing the name for this studio. Throughout her article Philipsen challenges the notion that creativity is an intangible innate quality, existing within the mind of one source, but rather creativity arises from a multitude of sources. Alike all things shared she suggests that creativity is easier to enhance by changing environmental conditions, rather than encouraging people to 'think more creatively'. Perceiving creativity in this way allows you to see it as an organisationally influenced phenomenon, rather than a psychological and individual phenomenon. Which enables you to have more control over creativity and to encourage creativity once being aware of how it can be environmentally enhanced. As Csikzentmihalyi (1996) states "a genuinely creative accomplishment is almost never the result of a sudden insight, a lightbulb flashing on in the dark, but comes after years of hard work". Constraints, as Philipsen suggests is one such way to manipulate the environment to enhance creativity. Students who attended The Film School in Denmark, who were forced into working with constraints for their projects eventually considered constraints to be both useful and inspirational. Such constraints included: making a scene with a specific theme, within a specific deadline and with other specific conditions concerning the use of camera, sound, actors etc. Students stated that these constraints ultimately made them feel secure, inspired and focused and... The writer learned about constraints A. before he googled it B. after he googled it C. when he googled it D. not enough information
(Answer)
B

Ques: "Have you ever been in a situation that was getting out of control and you were able to calm it down before it escalated further? What was the situation and what did you do or say?" As senior members of a Boy Scout Troop, other adults and I had to instruct two younger member on how to recognize and control emotions in the context of conflict. These two guys had a history of conflicts and I knew people won't always be present to control them. They had to grow up and be self-sufficient. On one camping trip they yet again had another heated argument over something trivial that kept escalating. Rather than jump in, I wanted to see how they deescalate the situation on their own. Suddenly, one of them pulls out a pocket knife and says "[insert demand here] or I'm gonna [insert some action with a knife to a person]." The situation has clearly escalated too far. Immediately I rushed in and yelled, "STOP! DROP IT, NOW!" He immediately dropped the knife, sat down, and began crying. What happens after that is irrelevant. Perhaps it's due to my quiet nature and sudden outburst that produced the shock effect. But more importantly the use of straight-forward, succinct commands can control the situation because all parties involved are automatically in natural fight-flight mode where elaborate, long explanations aren't going to be interpreted correctly by listeners for the purposes of deescalating the situation's climax. The long talk comes when the immediate conflict is temporarily resolved. * IMPORTANT NOTE: This incident is not a reflection on the Boy Scout of America, its spirit, or the use of such tools. The pocket knife is commonly used throughout camping trips. We have a set of rules and responsibilities set to the users so that they are used for the camping purposes. As an Eagle Scout myself, I am proud of the values promoted. how long did the argument between the boys go on for? A. 3 minutes B. 2 minutes C. 5 minutes D. not enough information
Ans: C

Question: The air exploded in a flash of bone and steel and blood. The clash of metal rang through the forest. An arrow pierced through the darkness, its barbed head tearing through flesh and muscle. A roar echoed off of the mountains far to the west. A cry broke through soon after. Then silence. Char stood over a pile of black fur and red blood. He held a curved sword, jagged half way down the wide blade and hilted in bone. He held a large thick bow in the other. Lorfel and Ranur stood behind him, panting. Lorfel, a short man of twenty six held a large axe in both hands and still prepared to swing it hard. Ranur, the largest of the three held a pike in one hand, its tip hanging low towards the ground. He buried his other hand in his gray tunic. "Did it get either of you?" Char's voice rasped low in the silence of the night. "No" Lorfel said. He planted his axe head on the ground with a thud and leaned on the tall handle. There was a pause. Char turned towards Ranur. "Are you hurt?" "Mm...My hand." Ranur took his hand out of his tunic. Moonlight gleamed red off of the ragged wound. Char thought he saw a glimmer of bone. "Did he claw you or bite you?" Char's voice held an urgency that set both Lorfel and Ranur on edge. Ranur paused and then spoke low. "He bit me." Char picked Lorfel and Ranur as his hunting partners for their speed and sharpness in battle. They had hunted beasts of the deep woods all of their lives. They hunted the beasts that hunted men. They all knew the risks of battling such creatures. The old man dropped his curved sword, drew his bow, and fired. The arrow hammered into Ranur's chest, burying itself in his heart. Lorfel saw the gleaming arrow head sticking almost a foot out of his companion's back. Ranur fell face first to the ground. Who bit Ranur? A. the beast B. Lorfel C. not enough information D. Char
Answer:
A