Are you obsolete?

Are you vulnerable, regardless of length of service at your organization and your unique skill sets? There are ways to test vulnerability and assemble some hard evidence that your management role makes a difference. You need to conduct a self-test for obsolescence. Ask yourself the following questions: Are your skills state-of-the-art? As a manager, how do you compare with others doing the same, or similar, job at competing organizations? Is your role essential? Where does your job fall into the big picture? Can you be replaced easily? If a thorough examination of your skills and your role convinces you that your contribution returns more to the organization than your salary, can you prove it? Consider these strategies: (1) Put together a portfolio, (2) ensure your boss' support, (3) advertise your successes, and (4) cultivate recruiters. The best reason to analyze your value to the organization is that if you are laid off, getting another comparable job--or a better one--will be far less of a hassle.     

Australia's Social Wage

Public Expenditure and Social Policy in Australia By R.B. SCOTTON & HELEN FERBER (eds.)
Poor Policies: Australian Income Security 1972–77 By PATRICIA TULLOCH.     

How to cope with behavioral interviewing questions.

What should a potential employee do when asked behavioral or highly intrusive questions during the interview? Here are some suggestions to help you be prepared should the interviewer ask you personal or objectionable questions: (1) Take some time for introspection; (2) be prepared to draw the line; (3) complain; and (4) write it off. And remember: A show of determination and setting boundaries in an interview may advance your progress. Coolness under fire is an attractive personality trait.     

Evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) and the Collected Data

To protect and secure food resources for the United States, it is crucial to have a method to compare food systems’ criticality. In 2007, the U.S. government funded development of the Food and Agriculture Sector Criticality Assessment Tool (FASCAT) to determine which food and agriculture systems were most critical to the nation. FASCAT was developed in a collaborative process involving government officials and food industry subject matter experts (SMEs). After development, data were collected using FASCAT to quantify threats, vulnerabilities, consequences, and the impacts on the United States from failure of evaluated food and agriculture systems. To examine FASCAT's utility, linear regression models were used to determine: (1) which groups of questions posed in FASCAT were better predictors of cumulative criticality scores; (2) whether the items included in FASCAT's criticality method or the smaller subset of FASCAT items included in DHS's risk analysis method predicted similar criticality scores. Akaike's information criterion was used to determine which regression models best described criticality, and a mixed linear model was used to shrink estimates of criticality for individual food and agriculture systems. The results indicated that: (1) some of the questions used in FASCAT strongly predicted food or agriculture system criticality; (2) the FASCAT criticality formula was a stronger predictor of criticality compared to the DHS risk formula; (3) the cumulative criticality formula predicted criticality more strongly than weighted criticality formula; and (4) the mixed linear regression model did not change the rank‐order of food and agriculture system criticality to a large degree.     

Quantifying uncertainty in the biospheric carbon flux for England and Wales

Summary.  A crucial issue in the current global warming debate is the effect of vegetation and soils on carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations in the atmosphere. Vegetation can extract CO₂ through photosynthesis, but respiration, decay of soil organic matter and disturbance effects such as fire return it to the atmosphere. The balance of these processes is the net carbon flux. To estimate the biospheric carbon flux for England and Wales, we address the statistical problem of inference for the sum of multiple outputs from a complex deterministic computer code whose input parameters are uncertain. The code is a process model which simulates the carbon dynamics of vegetation and soils, including the amount of carbon that is stored as a result of photosynthesis and the amount that is returned to the atmosphere through respiration. The aggregation of outputs corresponding to multiple sites and types of vegetation in a region gives an estimate of the total carbon flux for that region over a period of time. Expert prior opinions are elicited for marginal uncertainty about the relevant input parameters and for correlations of inputs between sites. A Gaussian process model is used to build emulators of the multiple code outputs and Bayesian uncertainty analysis is then used to propagate uncertainty in the input parameters through to uncertainty on the aggregated output. Numerical results are presented for England and Wales in the year 2000. It is estimated that vegetation and soils in England and Wales constituted a net sink of 7.55 Mt C (1 Mt C = 10¹² g of carbon) in 2000, with standard deviation 0.56 Mt C resulting from the sources of uncertainty that are considered.     

A Simple Formula for Calculating the "Mass Density" of a Lognormally Distributed Characteristic: Applications to Risk Analysis

Statements such as "80% of the employees do 20% of the work" or "the richest 1% of society controls 10% of its assets" are commonly used to describe the distribution or concentration of a variable characteristic within a population. Analogous statements can be constructed to reflect the relationship between probability and concentration for unvarying quantities surrounded by uncertainty. Both kinds of statements represent specific usages of a general relationship, the "mass density function," that is not widely exploited in risk analysis and management. This paper derives a simple formula for the mass density function when the uncertainty and/or the variability in a quantity is lognormally distributed; the formula gives the risk analyst an exact, "back-of-the-envelope" method for determining the fraction of the total amount of a quantity contained within any portion of its distribution. For example, if exposures to a toxicant are lognormally distributed with σ_{in x}= 2, 50% of all the exposure is borne by the 2.3% of persons most heavily exposed. Implications of this formula for various issues in risk assessment are explored, including: (1) the marginal benefits of risk reduction; (2) distributional equity and risk perception; (3) accurate confidence intervals for the population mean when a limited set of data is available; (4) the possible biases introduced by the uncritical assumption that extreme "outliers" exist; and (5) the calculation of the value of new information.     

THE ELDERLY VICTIM OF HOMICIDE:

This study attempts to resolve some of the disparity between lifestyle/routine activities theory and empirical findings concerning the elderly victim of homicide. Analysis of Canadian data leads to the conclusion that the elderly are disproportionately victims of theft-based homicide, a finding not consistent with the routine activity approach. A reformulation of the theory resolves the theory/data gap.     

Locating Gender in Environmental Sociology

Environmental sociology is premised on the inseparability of humans and nature and involves an analytical focus on the place of power and social inequality in shaping human/nonhuman interactions. Our purpose here is to conduct a broad overview of the place of gender in environmental sociology. We review gender‐relevant scholarship within environmental sociology and argue that to date, critical gender theorizing in the sub‐discipline is relatively undeveloped, as evidenced by theory that examines gender without considering power relations. We argue that this represents a shortcoming that should be addressed by future scholarship. In order to inform future critical gender–environment theorizing, we provide a brief review of ecofeminism and note promising examples of scholarship that takes power and inequality seriously when accounting for phenomena of relevance to women and the environment. It is likely that theorizing at the intersection of gender and the environment will become more prevalent given a growing consensus that social justice and equity are precursors to ecological sustainability; environmental sociologists could be the vanguard of critical gender–environment theory.