BUS576 - 6 Organizations - Human Resource Issues

Performance

When looking in an organization, there are different performers, top, average, and poor. The top performers are in the 10% that have contributed 50% or more than the remaining 90% (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). That is an amazing statistic I was not aware of. Benjamin Schneider says that 'people make the place.' This type of thinking is different than what I have observed or failed to observe. When interviewing, you are taught to sell yourself as a person who can add value to the organization. I always thought I had to become part of the organization, but people make up the organization and actually do make it what it is. Without the people, there is no organization. Of course there are policies, mission statements, values and beliefs, and goals, but everyone who works in the organization brings a different personality and originality that makes them make the place. Two organizations that are identical except for the people are going to be completely different. The way things are ran and done are going to be different because of the people they are employed at each. When there is better talent, it makes a huge different in company performance and talent is a crucial competitive advantage (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). It is hard to change people, so attracting the right people the first time can have a domino effect on the future of the company.

Wisdom

It is interesting that Pfeffer and Sutton say that wisdom is more important than intelligence when it comes to sustaining organizational performance. There are different ways of thinking that can be wise and unwise. The attitudes of wisdom are acting with knowledge, understanding and acknowledging the limits of your knowledge, having humility about your knowledge, asking for and accepting help from others, giving help, and being curious. In my job, we are all about asking for and giving help. Their counterparts are acting without knowledge, acting like a know-it-all, being arrogant or insecure about your knowledge, not asking for, or refusing help from others, not giving help, and lacking the curiosity. Since I am young, I usually do a lot of the asking from more experienced, wiser colleagues. Sometimes I feel that they get annoyed or just act without knowledge. It can be hard to constantly bother someone who doesn't want to give help. But this is a part of our jobs and we are a team. Sometimes, though, I am the same way. I don't want to help. There are different reasons for not wanting to help, but it is going to help the person who is curious and help increase performance. I always use the quote' give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.' Instead of helping someone, I want to give them the knowledge so they know and can teach others. Being wise is a great choice when moving forward in a career.

Critique

In How to Improve Employee Retention, the author talks about ways to increase retention rates in organizations. The first way to realize motivation is not enough. The information provided is from Mark Murphy who is an author and CEO. Murphy wrote a book so he probably did research to support his arguments. Him being a CEO doesn't give him more or less evidence of one thing or another because experience isn't solid. When reading a book, you would hope the author did research to ascertain supporting evidence. They mentioned his book in the article, so he probably did. The next way was to keep employees satisfied. The example used was from a CEO. It isn't a good example because there was no research involved, just past experience. The third way is to attract the right candidates. The company, Engage, implemented policies that produce results to support this. They even say that there is evidence to show their findings. The last three come from Murphy with research he did from his book. This means it is evidence-based.

Reflection

I can't believe the class is coming to an end and this is my last blog post, for now. It was a very useful class as have all my other MBA classes been. In undergrad, I felt I really didn't learn anything I would use in the real world. This is all real-world information that is positively correlated with my job. I am learning and using what I have learned to become a better employee and advance in my career. I am keeping this book to use as a reference for the future. I don't want to forget what I learned and can always use it because it is evidence-based. I now know what to look for when researching because not everything comes from good sources. Experience and credentials mean nothing. Next time I go to a speaker, I want inquire if that speaker actually did their research!

Resources:

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Spiro, J. (2010, Apr 7). How to Improve Employee Retention. Retrieved 
Aug 1, 2014, from Inc: http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/04/employee-
retention.html

BUS 576 - 5 Culture and Change Mangement

Should You Change Yourself at Work?

When I started my first professional job at UPMC, I thought there was a certain way I needed to act. I am young and being on my best professional behavior seemed to be the best way for other to take me seriously. I never wanted to share too much, talk about my personal life too much, or act like I do when I'm around my friends. I am in a work environment where things need to be taken seriously and I should act accordingly. I then met another woman who threw all those dangerous half-truths, according to Pfeffer and Sutton, out the window. She was herself all the time and sometimes I looked at that as a weakness. Her actions seemed inappropriate at times and I wondered what everyone else thought. She also sometimes dresses questionably. Then as the only women on our team, I feel that we need to keep our emotions in check. The common thought is that women get too emotional and sometimes need to be treated differently. The question is "Should work and the rest of life be separate?" There is a way to integrate them to 'meet in the middle' without sacrificing too much of one. The benefits from keeping work separate are things like making decisions based off the information provided, not personal relationships or other nonfactual information. There is also more control over the employees and less role conflict. Then integrating work with the rest of life has benefits like building commitment because the companies care about not only the employees, but their families too. It also helps when recruiting new employees as current employees' family and friends are first on the list. Then, employees are more authentic in their roles as leaders and just being employees. It is easier to be honest about how you feel than how you're supposed to feel. With all of these benefits on either side, there are still actions that are no appropriate in the workplace, but are in everyday life. It is easy to get caught up in getting comfortable at work, but there are still things that need to be done. Don't change yourself completely for work. Putting your own spin on things can help with efficiency and productivity (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2007).

Is Change Good or Bad?

When I think of change in the workplace, I think that some upper level management found something wrong with a current practice. They know most about what is going on from a macro view. This has recently happened to me at work. There are two different video conferencing systems that were being used for t telemedicine. My office created their own and we were licensing out another system from another vendor. For each service line, the main system being used was my office's and the backup was the one we were licensing out. Everything was going fine when one day we were called into a meeting. Upper level management decided they were no longer going to use my office's version and we were going to use the licensed out application as the main system.We had no say in this change and just had to start planning for the transition as many people would need to be notified and trained. There were pros and cons to each side, but it was a big change that would affect our day-to-day jobs each day. We had to push our other projects on the back burner and move this transition up to the main priority. When looking over Pfeffer and Sutton's 'What to ask before launching a major organizational change,' I realize even though it is a big change that is disruptive, it will probably be better in the long run. It's not always about 'change or die,' but answering the questions to see if the change is really necessary and helpful. First, I think the practice was better than what we were currently doing, but now we don't have a backup. The change is worth the time because they were ultimately losing money with the in house system. It will enhance the performance for telemedicine patients, nurses and doctors who are involved. Overall, I think the change is good for me and the company as a whole. I didn't have enough power to make the change happen, but upper level management did and they saw what the affects would be. People are a little overwhelmed with the change, but most users already know how to use the system since it was the backup. The new workflow may just take some time to get used to. The new main system is simpler to use and should be easy for users to catch on. There is no failing now, because this change is because of a previous failure. Going through these steps can help in making a decision to see if it will positively or negatively affect the company. There are always pitfalls we can't see until we are in them. These questions can hopefully help eliminate things we can't initially see. 

Critique

In the article from Inc.com, 10 Tips for Communicating Change, the author gives 10 tips on when planning and implementing a change. Each tip is bold with information as to why it is important underneath. Each tip sounds like it makes sense, but no evidence of these claims is cited or mentioned. At the end of the article, there is a couple sentences that these tips are just 'food for thought.' Under that, it gives the author's credentials as a way to back up each claim. This is not evidence-based research, but more past experiences. They author is going with what she learned over the years and that's it. This might be good information for some people, but implementing a positive, successful change in a company is crucial. Going off of information that people have learned over the years may not be aligned with your company. There needs to be more supporting evidence that can really show what works. 

Reflection

As the class end quickly approaches, I realize how helpful the Pfeffer and Sutton book is. I find myself more interested and intrigued with each chapter. I feel that I can use what is in the book for my professional career and I'm really excited to put it to the test. There are things I never really thought about or knew about before and this book is delving into these topics and giving concrete examples of what other companies did and are doing. Also, I really liked the chapter on how to integrate work and the rest of life. I have had trouble with these because there is a fine line. I found a friend at work and we talk about everything. I feel lucky in that aspect because there are no filters or judgement. With other co-workers, I have learned what to share and what not to share. It is good to have a work relationship, but going beyond that could be detrimental to my career. It is good to know that you can integrate the two and it is accepted.

Resources:

Fenson, S. (2000, Jun 1). 10 Tips for Communicating Change. Retrieved 

Jul 28, 2014, from inc.com: http://www.inc.com/articles/2000/06/19312.html 

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

BUS576 - 4 Group - Power and Politics, Conflict and Negotiation

Winning Power and Influence

Jeffrey Pfeffer talks about winning power and influence and some tactics on how to do that. The first thing I found interesting  is about networking. Networking is creating links and relationships on a professional and sometimes personal level. They are people that are great to be connected with for opportunities for the future. We all know that we need to network and it's about who you know and not necessarily what you know. Then he describes how some people say it's like a task. It's something you don't want to do, but you do it anyways. I know it feels like this to me because it takes a lot of energy to keep starting conversations with strangers. It's important to build your network, but it takes time to build it. Pfeffer then goes on to say that networking isn't a 'task,' but a skill. A task is like taking out the trash. You don't want to get better at it, but you have to do it. Networking is a skill because you keep striving to get better at it. Soon it won't feel like a 'task' or something you need to work for, but just come natural and easier. In my class, Strategic Performance for Women Executives, our instructor had us fill out a monthly networking plan. Her vision was for us to attend more events, reach out to loose contacts, and create meaningful bonds that we can cultivate. Then through these bonds and professional development, skills like learning to act and speak with power and stand with power can be achieved. You'll never be able to learn and practice winning power and influence if you don't know anyone. Do you think networking is as important as Pfeffer says? Do you view networking as a task? How else do you think you can win power and influence?

Just Be Angry

Then, in Jeffrey Pfeffer's 'You're Still the Same: Why Theories of Power Hold Over Time and Across Contexts,' he talks about powerful people and how people view them. I never really thought about anger and power having such positive correlations. Machiavelli found that if one must decide to be loved or feared, choose to be feared. There is a commonly observed reserve association that powerful people have the discretion to be angry because their power provides them more latitude in their behavior (Pfeffer, 2013). Then people associate people who are angry with power. Pfeffer then goes on to say that people can make their anger more apparent through social media and then more people will see how 'powerful' that person is. When thinking about it, I work with a man who seems to be angrier more than content most of the time. I don't like dealing with him because he gets angry at everything, but when I need something done, I go to him. He puts fear in people and I do think they associate that with power. They know if they don't get something done, this man will cause repercussions. I never really thought about them thinking the man I work with having power, but just that it's best to get what he needs done as soon as possible. This can be important, especially when there are time contingent tasks that need done. When being loved, your requests may not be as priority for the people whom you are asking. If you are feared, the people will most likely answer you quicker. I think there are other ways to be perceived other than anger and fear when being powerful, but it does seem to be a simple and easy way for effectiveness. Do you see examples of anger and power being associated in your workplace? What other ways are effective when being perceived as powerful?

Critique

In 3 Golden Rules of Negotiating, the author talks about three of us twelve golden rules to follow when entering into a negotiation. He first goes into how people misconceive what a negotiation really is. Negotiation comes from the Latin word negotiatus and means to carry on business (Cardone, 2013). Negotiations are just coming to an agreement with another person because they have something that adds value. The first rule is to always start the negotiation. The author pulls from past experiences to show how starting first has worked for him. The author is right that you are giving up control when letting the other person start the negotiation, but he doesn't have evidence that this is a negative start. If there was research to support this argument, I might be more inclined to believe that starting a negotiation controls where it ends. The next rule is to always negotiate in writing. This makes sense and there doesn't really need to be research to back this up. It is always important to have proof or evidence of a negotiation and the terms. If you don't, the negotiation is pointless as there is only hearsay. The last rule is to always stay cool. The author describes how great negotiators know how to stay cool in a negotiation with a lot of emotion. The author needs to support this claim in someway in order to make his 'rule' believable. The reader can understand why the author is saying this, but may want to know why.

Reflection

This week, I learned a lot about power and influence. I have taken a class about negotiations before in the fall, and then in the first part of the summer, I learned about strategic performance for women and we touched on negotiations and conflict. Power and influence were a little newer to me. I never really think about power, just leadership and moving up in a company. Power and influence never really come to mind and that is probably one of my weaknesses. I didn't think about it in the way I should. I need to be aware of how I am perceived from these standpoints. I need to learn to build up power and influence or it will be harder for me to lead and rise to the top. There are so many different aspects of a leader and some layers are harder to figure out than others. I am glad I was able to learn more about what it takes.

Resources:

Cardone, G. (2013, Jan 21). 3 Golden Rules of Negotiating. Retrieved 
Jul 17, 2014, from Entrepreneur: http://www.entrepreneur.com/
article/225537

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. Interview by Gary Hamel. How to Win Power and 
Influence People. Personal interview. 24 Feb. 2011.

Pfeffer, J. (2013). You're Still the Same: Why Theories of Power Hold 
Over Time and Across Contexts. Stanford University: 
The Academy of Management Perspectives.

BUS576 - 3 Teams, Communication, and Leadership

Leaders Deserve the Big Bucks, or Do They?

Whenever I think of a CEO, CIO, COO, or any executive heading a company, I think that they make a lot of money. The decisions being made rest on their shoulders and they are the face of the decision, no matter who actually makes it. They deserve to make six figures, right? Pfeffer and Sutton provided data from 1980 to 2000. In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times as much as the average worker. In 1990 the number rose to 85 times as much and then to 531 by 2000 (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Moving forward through the years, the gap of pay wages between the average worker and CEO is increasing at rapid speeds. What is changing so drastically that the pay for CEOs and other executives is skyrocketing while the average worker gets a minimal increase every year? These facts were astonishing to me. I never thought to really look at how much all the executives were making at UPMC versus what I am making now. I'm sure it is even more than 531 times by now. The CEOs and executives may get to convey the final decision, but it's the workers under them that come up with the decision based on evidence and facts they have researched. Overall, they don't really have the influence over the performance of the company because there are so many external factors. The best example is one in sports. When a sports team does well, they keep the coach and manager, when they do poor, they both get fired and are replaced. This just happened with the Pittsburgh Penguins where the coach and general manger were fired. They didn't play on the team and affect the winning and losing like the players do, but they are seen as the face of the team and are blamed for their losses. These are attributional errors, but it won't stop happening, especially in sports. It's all about money, power, and prestige, and people accept getting credit or blame when they step up in a leadership role (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Do you think it is a leader's role to get all the credit and all the blame? Why or why not? Would you want to be in a leadership role, maybe a CEO, knowing everything you read in chapter 8? Why or why not?

How Influential is Your Feedback?

I also found the experiment that Pfeffer and his colleagues did at Stanford provided interesting results. The experiment was between 3 subordinates and 3 supervisors. Each subordinate worked on a rough draft for an advertisement. The first supervisor was told they could only see the final advertisement due to constraints. The second supervisor was told they could see a rough draft and a checklist of things to change, but the subordinate wouldn't get the feedback due to constraints. The third subordinate was able to see a rough draft and submit a checklist of things to change that the subordinate can use. All the subordinates' final advertisements were exactly the same, but the third supervisor ranked that their subordinate's advertisement was twice as good and they were twice as good of a manager compared to the other two. When managers believe they have influence on something, they rate it higher than if they don't. They overestimate their positive effects and this is a pitfall of many managers I work with. I never really knew why they needed t provide me with changes that were so unnecessary to me, but so important to them. Sometimes when I submit something, the feedback I get back will not change the submission at all because the information is already there! It drives me crazy. When I feel this way, I will just think back to this experiment and just 'redo' my work. Do you have examples of this experiment at your job? What is your take on this experiment? Do you think it happens with many managers?

Critique

In the article 7 Ways to Become a Better Leader, the author goes into 7 ways leaders can improve and become a better leader. The first says 'don't be scared to fail big' and describes how a self-made billionaire, Michael Rubin, isn't afraid to fail and how he learns from his mistakes. This sounds like a great example, but the experience he went through may not always hold true for others. The second is 'banish self'doubt by acknowledging your accomplishments.' The author uses a book as evidence of this claim. As far as I know, the author of the book did her research to come up with the recommendations. The third says 'don't settle for the standard solution.' Again, the author of the article uses a book and author as evidence. If someone writes a book, should we automatically believe their claim? They had to have done some research, right? The rest of the claims are supported by some research or studies that the author describes in the text beneath the heading. Overall, the article isn't just based on what the author thinks, past experience, or people with advanced degrees. The article does focus on research and facts that can back up the claims.

Reflection

Everyday I work with teams and am trying to develop into a successful leader. I especially liked this chapter in Pfeffer and Sutton's book because it tells you what others don't. You always think the CEO or executives are in charge of the performance of a company, but that isn't necessarily true. Learning how to be a good leader is important, especially now. Getting an MBA was one of the best decisions I have made. The information provides real-world examples on what to expect. I am also looking at everything I say and everyone else says with having no evidence! Whenever someone presents me with a claim, I ask for the evidence. If they don't have any, I say well then if there's no evidence, let's just go with my opinion. I hope I can keep this mindset going.

Resources:

Entis, L. (2014, Jan 14). 7 Ways to Become a Better Leader. Retrieved 
Jul 12, 2014, from Entrepreneur: http://www.entrepreneur.com
/article/230860

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

BUS576 - 2 How Incentives Drive Us

It isn't a secret that we all work for our money, and the more, the better. If we are getting paid less, our motivation or incentive to do more decreases. This is especially true if someone at the same level as us gets paid more. Money drives performance unless you are rich and are working for fun (too bad many of us don't have this luxury). Through this, there are three different ways that incentives can drive performance and after reading through these, I thought about the informational effect and my friend's past job. My friend fixed cars and could work between six and twelve hours a day. At the end of the week, all the mechanics have their hours thrown into a pot and it is divided evenly. There are two ways this can go, you could have worked x amount of hours and got paid for more hours than you worked, or your worked y amount of hours and got paid for less hours than you worked. Most of the time, if you worked long days and many hours, the pay you were getting wasn't fair at the end of the week. This really showed the workers that they wanted to cut costs and didn't believe in fairness in wages. My friend eventually quit, but I think it's insane to have even stayed a week. If people are so driven by money and incentives, why did the hard working employees keep their jobs there? What incentive would you have to work there? After what point does money stop driving your performance?

I also thought it was interesting that money doesn't always drive performance. While reading on, incentives can attract the wrong kind of talent. I thought it was different that the CEO of Tandem Computers never told new hires their pay until they accepted. Many people do come for the money and leave for the money. When companies are trying to reduce turnover rates, they want employees who are interested in the company and the beliefs. There aren't just financial incentives, but telling people the company's strategy and expectations. People can gain benefits if they enjoy the work they do. Working at UPMC, I am helping patients to see a doctor without having to travel a whole day for a 20 minute appointment. Making sure the equipment works and supporting the applications indirectly helps patients to have a better experience, not have to miss work, or spend more time with their families (which is very important to me). I also am learning about computers everyday and this can help me in my everyday life. I have the benefit of being a part of a technological innovation that is taking off everywhere. I feel that my values are aligning with UPMC's providing exceptional patient care. I enjoy my work and enjoy telling people about what I do. I'm in an IT position and it's actually interesting. Do you feel that you gain more than financial incentives through your job? Why or why not? Does a higher paying job with less beneficial incentives or a lower paying job with higher beneficial incentives drive you?

In How to Motivate Your Problem People, they talk about 'real' peoples' problems and how they motivated their employees. They use cases and how the specific managers are handling the situations. They label the heading, 'A Familiar Problem,' but just because the problem may be familiar, doesn't mean the situation or solution is going to be the same. They say there is no way to motivate employees, only they can motivate themselves, but the author only says this because they did 'years of studying and advising.' Just because one person studies certain people for years, doesn't make this statement true. These people are also using past examples of what they did as ideas of what to do for your employee. Every circumstance is different and providing examples is as good as reading a fictional book. Using research about incentives can help to motivate employees and increase their productivity.

It's already week two and I really am enjoying the class. I never really thought about non financial incentives. If you really enjoy your job, you are reaping benefits that aren't necessarily financial, even though that does help. I also like the videos on decision making. Having evidence and data instead of past experiences helps the decision we are making to be more successful. I thought it was really interesting that sometimes we don't even make the decision. We are always susceptible to external forces that can actually make the decision for us without us even knowing. I am going to pay more attention to the way I make decisions and how things are framed they may lead me to choose what they want me to choose. 

Resources:

Nicholson, N. (2003, Jan). How to Motivate Your Problem People. Retrieved Jul 7, 2014, from Harvard Business Review: http://hbr.org/2003/01/how-to-motivate-your-problem-people/ar/1

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Bus576-1 Evidence-Based Management, What's That?

In my personal life, at work, and at school, I don't use evidence-based management ever. I go off of my own opinions, past experiences, and what I believe to be right. When you are in the moment, and think you know something, it is hard to hold back what you have experienced in the past. It is also hard to gather the evidence and facts you need to convince the other side that you are correct and why in such a casual, quick setting. After thinking about how I am a repeat offender of this, reading 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense' by Pfeffer and Sutton, I finally realized that I've been going about it all wrong. Having the facts can be tedious and more work than you want to do, but in the long run it can really affect the outcome of a situation. I thought it was comical when Pfeffer and Sutton talk about the doctor and the appendectomy. The doctor wants to do an appendectomy on the second patient because it made the first patient better. It is true that the treatment needs to fit the disease and the same holds true for business. There isn't one solution than can be used for different situations. This is why so many ideas and decisions fail. Benchmarking against a completely different circumstance in the past can be detrimental for the future. Do you fall into the same pitfalls I do? Why or why not? Why do you think people decide to go with past experiences rather than evidence? Can there ever be too much evidence? Why or why not?

I also liked the 'Substituting Facts for Conventional Wisdom' section. My family and I are avid casino goers and my dad has the highest tier card at the casino by us, but only has the first tier card at a casino over an hour away. They don't send him a lot of free play or perks at the casino by us since it only takes a little bit to get him to come in. COO, Gary Loveman realized this at Harrah's and stopped sending so much to the players who came in a lot without incentive. At the other casino my dad goes to, they send him free hotel rooms and a lot of free play because otherwise it isn't worth it for him to make the trip. Loveman also saw this and they stopped listening to the conventional wisdom and used the hard data and facts to turn a larger profit for the company. If the data is there, why not use it? At UPMC, my manager is constantly looking at new ways to make new ideas and decisions work successfully. It is hard to think that way at first, but once you get into the habit of using data instead of opinions, the work that is done will have a lot more value and worth in the end. There is also a high chance that the same work won't have to be done multiple times! Do you use conventional wisdom instead of facts? Provide an example of two of when wisdom was used in your life.

On Inc.com there is an article titled 5 Ways to Improve Quality by the Inc staff. They provide five ways that a business owner or manager can improve quality or at least put someone on the right path. In articles, the writer(s) can convey any message they want if the reader isn't educated on the subject, why wouldn't they agree? The article goes into the five ways which are make a commitment, track mistakes, invest in training, organize quality circles, and have the right attitude. They all sound great, but where are they getting these from? In each paragraph, they talk about a person who says this is a good way to improve quality. Phrases like 'experts say' or getting a CEO's perspective is not evidence-based. Those are doing what seems to have worked in the past, following deeply held ideologies (just because it's from post-war Japan doesn't mean it works now) and casual benchmarking. They also talk about a guy named W. Edwards Deming and he was the father of the quality movement. He believed many things, but they are focusing too much on what he believed versus the facts. Many people may look at the article as helpful or insightful, but there isn't too much evidence that supports the ideas.

In just one week of this class, I feel much more intelligent. I tested this evidence-based decision making on my mom while passing a bar. On the sign it said, 'No persons under 30 allowed.' I asked my mom why she thought they wouldn't allow people under 30 years old. She gave her opinion and I asked her where she got that information. She was basing it off of her experience and opinions. I said I didn't agree with her logic and we would have to research whether that was true or not. She then asked me why I thought people under 30 years old weren't allowed in the bar and I said that I didn't have enough information to come up with an educated conclusion and I would have to get back to her. She laughed and said that I was really learning a lot in my classes and was proud. Also, critiquing that article was such a different approach than I have taken before. I felt weird not believing a published article because they were using past experiences. It's going to be hard for me to use any article for resources now!

Resources:

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, & Total Nonsense. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Staff, I. (2010, Sept 2). 5 Ways to Improve Quality. Retrieved Jun 26, 2014, from Inc.: http://www.inc.com/guides/2010/09/5-ways-to-improve-quality.html