Do you think coalition governments can be effective? What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of the coalition governing model?

Coalition governments, also known as consociational, or power-sharing governments, can be effective in the right circumstances. 

This type of government is popularly seen in Europe, in countries such as Switzerland and Ireland. The main benefit is that it gives members of the government from different ideologies the opportunity to work together in order to represent a larger portion of the population.

A strong example to back up the use of a coalition government is the case of India. India is comprised of 29 states, each representing a distinct culture, language, and history. In order to respect these differences, each state has some autonomy in its ability to create laws and establish an official state language and education system, among other factors. This has eased tensions between the states and the federal government, and the representatives of each state in India have the ability to speak for their states in the national government as well. This has all resulted in a stable Indian government where there is generally great pride in not only the home state of Indians but also in the idea of being "Indian" in a national sense as well.

Drawbacks to coalition government can often be seen when there are great ethnic or religious divides. One type of coalition government is that of "proportional representation." This is when, for example, there are two ethnic groups in a country--one has a larger population than the other: the group with a larger population will have a larger representation in the government (proportional to its population size). When there is already hostility between the two groups, this type of representation can spark outcry and often violence from the smaller and less represented group. In response to this initial upset, the other group will often react with violence as well, leading to war and/or a complete breakdown of the government. 

An example of a failure in a coalition government is the case of Lebanon. The power was divided between Christian, Sunni Muslim, and Shi'a Muslim populations in the 1940s. This arrangement unfortunately ended in civil war.

So in some cases, coalition governments can be effective, but there is always the risk, especially when forming a coalition between sensitive divisions, that the end result will be violence and war.

What are the differences between conceptual skills, human skills, and technical skills?

These are all valuable skills to have in any organization, and a good manager will have all three.  Let's go over them one at a time.

Conceptual skills are "thinking" kinds of skills. Our ability to look at the big picture is a conceptual skill. Our ability to see how all the parts make the whole is a conceptual skill, an understanding of relationships.  Our ability to generate and assess solutions to problems is sometimes a kind of conceptual skill.  Logic is a conceptual skill.  We need to understand cause and effect and analogy, which are two forms of logical analysis.  Critical thinking is a kind of conceptual skill in which one questions and assesses what one is presented with, rather than taking it as given.  Planning is a conceptual skill. 

Human skills are interpersonal and intrapersonal skills. That is, they are the skills we use to get along with other people and to understand ourselves, too.  Everyone needs needs both to get along in any social setting, but managers need them more than most because managers are responsible for motivating people to be as productive as possible and also for managing any conflict in the workplace.  The person who has no insight into others and him or herself will not do very well with this. Empathy is one very important kind of interpersonal skill. We can succeed better with people if we understand how they feel. Understanding oneself is equally important, to know one's weaknesses and strengths, so as to work on the weakness and capitalize on the strengths.  If I know that I am not at my best in the morning before my second cup of coffee, I would not want to hold an important meeting.  On the other hand, some people do their very best work very early.  If I am more introverted than extroverted, there are some more "social" tasks I might delegate to someone extroverted.  To be an effective manager, you must understand yourself and others.

Technical skills are sometimes thought of as mechanical skills, which embrace not only the nuts and bolts of traditional mechanics, but also today's technological skills.  Having these does not necessarily mean that a manager can fix the copier or get rid of the technology help desk. It does mean the manager needs to have a clue. A manager, for example, might be responsible for choosing new software for a company, in which case, the manager needs to have some idea how such software works and what it does.  A breakdown on the production line might not find the manager tightening the screw that worked itself loose, although there are many who would and do, but the manager has to have at least enough mechanical sense to know if the workers should be sent home or if the line can be operational in an hour.  It is difficult to manage any kind of mechanical or technological operation if one has no skills whatsoever in this area.

A good manager has many tools in the toolbox to draw upon, and these are the most important kinds of skills to have.  The manager who can excel in all three areas should be successful.

What does this mean: "Given a sizable tract in which to determine the optimum soil resistivity, some intuition is in order."

What this means is that you have an area of soil that is large enough to be mixed thoroughly, so that it can be considered uniform. In addition, the soil's resistivity means how much electrical resistance the soil loads in relation to a geometric constraint. 

Where it implies "intuition is in order," what it is looking for is some intelligence on your part. You must conjure a way in your mind to determine this resistivity. This may mean you need to devise an experiment to determine resistivity, or if the question is a real life application rather than theoretical, ask a proper authority for data on the soil.

If you must run an experiment, you can build a rig pretty easily at home for imprecise measurements by making a small box with electric contacts at both ends, measuring the base resistance across with a multimeter, and then filling the box with soil to take another measurement. More measurements can be made to build a data set. Finally, just measure the cross sectional area and box length to calculate the resistivity from the resistance and dimensions.

What is a weakness with the legislative branch?

One weakness of the legislative branch is that it could be difficult to pass a law. We are seeing that scenario play out to some degree today. Because there are two houses of Congress, an issue may arise if a different political party controls each house of Congress. If those parties differ significantly over many issues, little might get accomplished. Additionally, if the President is from a different party than both houses of Congress, little might get done in this situation.

President Obama is from the Democratic Party while the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Because there isn’t a great working relationship between the President and the Congress, the threat of a presidential veto is always present. Since the Republicans don’t control two-thirds of both houses of Congress, it would be hard to override a veto. As a result, there has been some difficulty in reaching an agreement with proposed laws. At times, the President wanted to see a certain concept be put into a law. However, since Congress is controlled by the Republicans who didn't agree with the President about this concept, no action was taken and the idea never became a law. After the election in 2012, the Democrats controlled the Senate while the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. Since these parties had very different opinions on various issues, there wasn’t a lot of agreement on bills, and many bills never got passed.

There are circumstances where the legislative branch is split between the parties that control each house, or the President is from a different party than the party that controls both houses of Congress. As a result, it becomes more difficult to a pass a law, which is one weakness of the legislative branch.

Describe a fad that has come and gone during your lifetime, such as Beanie Babies. Did you take part in the fad? Why or why not? How long did...

Back in the 1970's, there was a brief fad where people were buying "Pet Rocks." They came in a cardboard box that looked like the kind of thing you would carry a hamster home in from a pet store. They had an instruction booklet with tips for "training" the pet rock. 

While I was aware of the fad--I was a teenager--I did not take part in it. They sold for $4 and that was actually a decent amount of money. Also, I had very skeptical parents who would have pointed out that it was just a rock and I could pick up a rock anywhere for free. I knew better than to ask!

The Wikipedia article on Pet Rocks, cited below, says that the fad lasted about six months. They were really hot and well-known very suddenly and they dropped out of consciousness for the most part equally suddenly. 

Truly, this fad was unsustainable. After all, people began to recognize, as my parents did, that they were buying essentially nothing. The hot Christmas gift in 1975 began to gather dust in 1976. 

In actuality, I have seen lots of fads come and go, including Beanie Babies, Cabbage Patch Dolls, Elmo, and other things I can't even remember. These fads tend to play on people's emotions, which leads to them fighting each other at McDonald's for a Happy Meal prize, in the case of Beanie Babies. Eventually, logic starts to kick in and the "investments" people make in their collections of whatever become mostly worthless. 

What does Catherine want to show by pressing the electric bell?

The general answer to the question is that Catherine wants to show that she is a high status, cultivated person. If the question refers to her specific use of the bell in Act III, the answer is that she wants to summon a servant, and show herself to be cool, powerful, and unperturbed by the controversy of the coat.

Here are the particulars.

First, Catherine wants to be counted among the most cultured, civilized people. So while her husband, Petkoff,  is away at war, she has had an electric servant bell installed in her home. It's a complete novelty to Petkoff; he hasn't even heard of these devices, and asks her what it's for. Her answer clarifies what it means to her: It's an important act of conforming to ways of cultural elites.

CATHERINE. You touch a button; something tinkles in the kitchen; and then Nicola comes up.

PETKOFF. Why not shout for him?

CATHERINE. Civilized people never shout for their servants. I've learnt that while you were away.

Second, regarding Catherine's use of the bell in Act III, Catherine presses the button to summon Nicola so she can tell him to retrieve the coat from the blue closet. Using the bell allows Catherine to create a more dramatic effect -- highlighting her apparent calm and confidence. She might have called out for Nicola instead, or left the library to get the coat herself. But it seems clear that she is interested in making an impression as the cool, regal mistress of the house. After she presses the bell, and her husband questions her about it, the stage directions describe her confident, grand air:

She looks at him majestically and silently resumes her chair and her needlework.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a long chain of command?

A long chain of command certainly does have advantages and disadvantages. Let's go over the most extreme example, the military.  A military organization has a general at the top and at the bottom is a private. It is the best example there is, I think, of a long chain of command. 

A few advantages come quickly to mind.  One advantage to this is that the span of control is not too wide. The general does not have to give direct orders to tens of thousands of privates at the bottom, just to the lieutenant general beneath him or her and so on down the line until a lieutenant or captain gets the orders, transmits them to a sergeant, who then tells the troops what to do.  Each person is responsible for a smaller number of people, which makes for much better management and control.  Another advantage is that the person at the top in such an organization is able to have a clear mind to think about the big picture, and strategize about what troops to deploy where, or how to eliminate the culture of sexual harassment.  At each level in a long chain of command, the responsibilities are delineated in a way that affords the person responsible the time and energy to focus on just those delineated responsibilities.  The Major does not worry about whether the cook is doing a good job or how many medics are attached to a particular unit. Someone below him or her has this concern.  Another advantage is in the way communication works. Privates who have complaints or suggestions do not call the general with them. They go through the chain of command.  This reduces the "clutter" at the top and is meant to ensure that the person at the top does not use all of his or her time putting out small fires, not the best use of time for a general. In the military, at least, this very long chain of command seems to instill discipline in the ranks quite effectively, perhaps because of the span of control and the communications mechanisms.

Disadvantages there certainly are, though. There is almost a complete lack of autonomy at the lower levels, so that decision-making is seldom localized.  This means that the people on the spot, closest to the facts, are usually unable to act.  They must await disposition from a higher level, which means that the best decisions are not always being made. Another disadvantage is in the long line of communication. There probably are some times that it would be good for a private to tell a general something, and this chain of command makes that a virtual impossibility.  Another disadvantage is that the people at the top can feel so removed from the people below that the people below are not as motivated as they could be.  Most people like to know whom they are working for, I think, and to see that person at least occasionally.  This is why generals do go around talking to troops, but it is unlikely that they ever get around often enough to really motivate people. 

These advantages and disadvantages exist just as much in civilian organizations as they do in the military, and if you think about a very large company, you will be able to see their application easily.