The government encourages an increased level of productivity by

Martin is managing a production line in a manufacturing plant in the midwest. martin has a quality and productivity problem in one part of the manufacturing process. he discovers that his workers aren't sure what to do. when he asks why they didn't ask questions, the universal reply is, "we midwesterners don't ask questions, we just do." martin decides to address this problem by offering recognition rewards for anyone who asks the most job-related questions each month that lead to process improvements. unfortunately, martin finds the program doesn't work. when he further questions his workers, he discovers that no one wants to be the first to ask questions. as a group, workers still feel that they should figure it out on their own and not ask questions. martin finds carmen, one of the workers that everyone else admires, and talks her into being the first to ask questions as part of the program. after about a month, several other people begin to submit questions, and soon everyone in the plant is asking questions. refer to case 6.1. martin's plan failed initially because he didn't consider the power of on attitudes.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

Which of the following is a sign of a weak economywhich of the following is a sign of a weak economy