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. What did John eat? A. something sour B. something sweet C. not enough information D. something savory
B

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack. "There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication." But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack. A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war. U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world. The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq. The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are... Why were missiles to be launched at Syria? A. not enough information B. Due to terrorist bombings C. Due to a poison gas attack D. Due to attacks on US personnel
C

Q: Earlier this year my depression got very bad, very quickly. I'd been having intrusive suicidal thoughts for a while. It was a combination of a bad medication regimen and lots of little stressorsschool, work, a car accident, you name it. I took to a very private social media account that only those I was closest to could see. I used that account to rant about my problems. It was my coping mechanism and how I kept myself sane. Somehow just typing it out got it off my chest in ways writing in a journal couldn't (now, I try to use Quora for this purpose instead). One night in early March I went to a performance that my friends were part of. I went alone. While I was there, I got a series of texts regarding my girlfriend. I knew that what those texts said would cause me an immense amount of stress and sleepless nights. I went onto my social media account. I don't remember exactly what I posted. It wasn't specific, but rather something along the lines of "I'm stressed, this is the cherry on top, I honestly don't know how I'm going to handle this." Whatever it was, someone who followed that account knew I was at my breaking point. They called an anonymous tip line and reported that they believed I was in danger of killing myself. I got home from the performance at midnight and my dad was in my driveway. I asked him why. He told me he'd been contacted and that someone reported a concern about me. I was admitted to the hospital the next day, and I spent a week an an inpatient psychiatric unit where I received better medication, therapy and coaching on positive coping mechanisms. Whoever called saved me, but in a way I saved my own life that day. What I thought was just another routine post about stress got me the help I so desperately needed. I know without it, I would have ended my own life that day. Funny how that works. How does the narrator feel about his girlfriend? A. Stressed. B. Angry. C. In love. D. not enough information
A: A

Q: Rain, the young man is thinking. Of course it would be raining. Not a heavy, cleansing rain that leaves the streets steaming and the neatly sculptured yards lush and fragrant. This is a gray drizzling rain. A rain that makes him think of places like England and Scotland as they appear in those disturbing late night films on cable, the ones in black and white that weren't particularly memorable when they were made and are even less so now. Still, it rains and the air is cool. All he has to shelter him is a think nylon jacket. The jacket is soaked. It feels both chilly and coarse against his skin. His hair hangs in flat and sodden wings, falling into his eyes. It's long in the back, almost to his shoulders, and he thinks that the cars that pass him on the street, the occupants of those cars, might look at him and see only that he is wet and not that he is dirty as well. Can they tell that his hair has been unwashed for days? That his clothes are the same ones he's worn for more than a week? It doesn't matter. He's invisible to them as soon as they pass, taking any assumptions they might make with them. They might just mistake him for one of those hoity-toity college kids, one of those clean limbed and beaming have's who has happened to find himself caught out without his umbrella. He makes a desultory attempt to straighten his shoulders, to lift his eyes from the buckled sidewalk. To look like he might have a purpose or a destination. It doesn't help. He has become the day. He has internalized the environment. He did that years ago, in fact. That's all I can do. Not his words, of course, but he understands them. He is intimately acquainted with his limitations. The rain storm in the story most likely lasted: A. A couple of weeks B. not enough information C. Several hours D. Many days
A: C