Marijuana Impairments a Qualitative Study

Marijuana Impairments a Qualitative Study The term that knowledge is power only stands correct if your information is reliable and correct. Therefore, only some information is power, for not all information is reliable. The information we receive substantiates our belief system, and the decisions we make and how we understand the world around us. If that information is tainted by receiving misinformation/inaccuracies, such as information handed down through myths, folklore, and others’ misconceived ideals, then this information is dis-empowering to us and could be harmful to our creditability (Harris, 2010).This qualitative study is on the effects of Marijuana, and how it impairs function and inhibits motor skills. The purpose of a qualitative study is to gain knowledge from a particular social situation, event, role, group, or interaction (Creswell, 2009 p. 194). Therefore, it is an investigative process where the researcher gradually derives a conclusion from a social phenom enon by contrasting, comparing, recreating, cataloging and classifying the object of a study (Creswell, 2009, p. 194).According to Creswell (2009), in order to accomplish a qualitative study one must immerse themselves into the everyday activities of the topic/setting of the informants’ environment through continual interaction, and pursue the informants’ views and interpretations (p. 194). Qualitative research is the attempt to reconstruct the subjects’ real-world experiences. The study by Ramaekers, Kauert, Ruitenbeek, Theunssen, Schneider, and Moeller (2006) indicates that high-potency marijuana was shown to consistently impair executive function as assessed in the Tower of London (TOL) task (p. 298). In the original version of TOL, it consists of three colored balls, which must be arranged on three sticks to match the target configuration on a picture while only one ball can be moved at a time (p. 2298). The current version is computer generated images compr ised of the start and finish arrangements of balls. Every time a ball is moved counts as one step. The subject decides as quickly as possible, whether the end arrangement can be accomplished in 2, 3, 4, or 5 steps from the beginning arrangement by pushing the corresponding number coded button (Ramaekers, et al. 2006, p. 2298). The use of nine separate versions of this test were assessed and objectively reviewed. The TOL test found the executive function and planning abilities of the subjects under the influence of a high dosage of THC had their cognitive functions impaired and measured the degree of this impairment (Ramaekers, et al. , 2006). In conclusion, participants that smoked marijuana with a high THC content illustrated a consistent impairment of executive function when undergoing the TOL.The motor functions were also impaired through a decrease in the ability to track the objects when it came to â€Å"critical tracking task† (Ramaekers, et al. , 2006), along with a si gnificant decline in motor response, with impairments continuing for a period up to six hours after smoking a high level THC 500 mg/kg marijuana joint (Ramaekers, et al. , 2006, p. 2302). The study did not include subjects that were heavy daily users of marijuana in order to prevent tainting the results of this test through residual impairment by the THC already in the systems of those individuals (Ramaekers, et al. 2006). References Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Harris. R. (2010). Evaluating internet research sources. Virtual Salt. Retrieved January 1, 2012,  2011, from http://www. virtualsalt. com/evalu8it. htm. http://pewresearch. org. Ramaekers, J. G. , Kauert2, G. , van Ruitenbeek, P. , Theunissen, E. L. , Schneider, E. , & Moeller, M. R. (2006). High-potency Marijuana impairs executive function and inhibitory motor control. Neuropsychopharmacology, 31, 2296–2303

Difference Between Black and White

Audrey Edwards propagates her belief that blacks must only marry blacks for the simple reason that whites continue to feel superior to blacks because the latter were their slaves at one time. Apparently, the difference between the whites and the blacks of the United States is deep-rooted – going back to early America where Europeans had brought African slaves. Although slavery was abolished in the centuries to come, the huge socioeconomic difference between the white masters and their black slaves was to remain at the level of the subconscious mind of America.From the subconscious mind to the culture of America – it was effortless for the â€Å"difference† between black and whites to make a transition. In a newspaper report published in the year 1957, the Governor of Arkansas maintained that peace was not possible without racial segregation, that is, without strict adherance to the concept of white privilege, which is defined as â€Å"a special advantage or bene fit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.  (Clark)†Integration was virtually impossible, in other words, and racial tension was expected to rise as a result of the discussions about letting the African Americans and the whites study together in an academic institution (â€Å"Act To Block Integration in Arkansas†). After all, the concept of white privilege entailed that the whites were socially and intellectually superior to the blacks, and therefore could not study with those that were inferior to them. In a racial riot like the one that was expected back in 1957, the African Americans were expected to fight for their self-esteem.The white Americans, on the contrary, were expected to protect their notion of superiority by fighting back. It appears to be a fact that the â€Å"difference† was mainly maintained by the whites as opposed to the blacks. The blacks wer e fighting for equal rights during the Civil Rights Movement of America. In response to the racial abuses they had suffered at the hands of the whites who had considered themselves superior to their slaves of the past; the blacks had to be compensated by means of affirmative action.Affirmative action is defined as a â€Å"policy that gives a preference to individuals based upon their belonging to designated groups who are underrepresented not only in the most desirable occupational classes, but also in school admissions and government contracts. † Those who are underrepresented thus can be referred to as disadvantaged groups, seeing as they do not have a powerful representative voice to speak for their rights.The policy of affirmative action serves as a blessing for the disadvantaged groups for this reason, by not only adding extra points to the credit of the members of disadvantaged groups when performance evaluation is called for, but also by allocating extra funds to recru it such members of the community. Whereas the opponents of affirmative action claim that it is injustice to favor a group just because it is considered â€Å"disadvantaged,† proponents of the policy assert that affirmative action is necessary to right the wrongs of the past with respect to discrimination and/or racism (Boylan).In other words, in the absence of affirmative action, discrimination and/or racism may very well continue in almost any if not all spheres of life. The â€Å"difference† between whites and blacks has definitely seeped into the culture of America from its subconscious mind where the history of the nation is stored. If the whites of America had not used the services of black slaves in the past, there would have been no question of white privilege, and America would not have found it useful to combat racism with affirmative action.In actuality, white privilege translates into obvious racism, which is a belief system claiming that individuals can be superior to others solely on the basis of race. The theory of racism has led to much violence and genocide in the world. It was racism that led the Nazis to slaughter the Jews simply by believing that the latter were inferior. The theory of racism seems to have been applied everywhere in the world, even though universal values inform us that people who are superior are only those who do good in this world.Would universal values, therefore, be able to end the â€Å"difference†? The answer appears to be Yes. Even so, the collective memory of America will not be eradicated, and nobody can force the whites, in particular, to forget that the blacks were their slaves in the past. The â€Å"difference† is expected to be maintained at some level. Finally, it is worthy of note that without the great socioeconomic divide between the blacks and the whites in America’s early memories, there would have been no conflict whatsoever.

Alexander H. Stephens - Cornerstone Speech

Alexander H. Stephens Cornerstone Speech Delivered 21 March 1861, Savannah, Georgia When perfect quiet is restored, I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or confusion. I shall take my time I feel quite prepared to spend the night with you if necessary. I very much regret that everyone who desires cannot hear what I have to say. Not that I have any display to make, or anything very entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear them.I was remarking that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decide dly better than the old. Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,0 00,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to fac ilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution. Another feature to which I will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives and may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. I should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the President to select his constitutional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives. That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that government. It is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. Ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle. Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for instance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no opportunity of explaining, expounding, enforcing, or defending his views of policy; his only resort was through the medium of an organ. In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to. This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system. In the new constitution, provision has been made by which our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper. It is to be greatly hoped that under our system we shall never have what is known as a government organ. Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the rock upon which the old Union would split. He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the storm came and the wind blew. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in n ature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of natur e. Our system commits no such violation of natures laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made one star to differ from another star in glory. The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders is become the chief of the corner the real corner-stone in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph. Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread, and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves. But to pass on: Some have propounded the inquiry whether it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without further accessions? Have we the means and ability to maintain nationality among the powers of the earth? On this point I would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are, for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us, still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny with us. That they ultimately will join us be compelled to do it is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without them, even if they should not. We have all the essential elements of a high national career. The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we embrace five hundred and sixty-four thousand square miles and upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen States. It is an area of country more than double the territory of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers, has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria, in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860; this includes white and black. The entire population, incl uding white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than four millions in 1790, and still less in 76, when the independence of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population, dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now? In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States cannot be less than twenty-two hundred millions of dollars! This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This is without taking into account the heavy city debts, corporation debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States. These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much unde r five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory as we have-with such an amount of population-with a climate and soil unsurpassed by any on the face of the earth-with such resources already at our command-with productions which control the commerce of the world-who can entertain any apprehensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or not? It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us. The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security we all looked to in common. These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in 1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and that all, to some extent, had been Federalists and all Republicans; so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether they come or not. In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me, that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this, an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, resolute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. Their works speak for them; the provisional government speaks for them; the constitution of the permanent government wi ll be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and statesmanship. But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the result of this revolution? Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun? In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority, with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence, may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His destinies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants himself upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry, patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. So it is with us. We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for. But if unwise counsels prevail if we become divided if schisms arise if dissentions spring up if factions are engendered if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable. We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers. These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue, that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is essential to good government Organized upon principles of perfect justice and right-seeking amity and friendship with all other powers-I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitution for the admission of other States; it is more guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle. The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission, will become the controlling power on this continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new assimilation. Such are some of the glimpses of the future as I catch them. But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped, will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and forbearance. As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincolns inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the Nort h than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry. The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch of the accursed soil. Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence? Text Source: Cleveland, H. (1886). Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, Before, During, and Since the War. Philadelphia, PA.

Organism patenting in Africa Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Organism patenting in Africa - Coursework Example They practiced these methods using DNA that was recombinant. Sometime after, Organism patenting was allowed after certain methods were seen fit to help with development and inventions. Patenting was allowed with one cardinal rule; that the patenting of living organism was and should be man-made. Since 1980, there have been many experiments that have been the result of patenting of the genetically modified organisms. Patenting of an organism includes the use of bacteria, viruses, certain seeds and plants. Another group of organisms that can be used is non-human species, particularly animals (Kankanala, 127, 2007).  Patenting does not only occur to the above named species. They can also occur from human cells, though these have to be in an isolated and manipulated state. Plants that are seemingly new and their seeds can be patented. Patenting does not come without its cost. There have been controversies that have gathered up from the time patenting occurred and has mostly been influe nced by the concern over the expense of certain patented medicines and other tests. There have also been concerns with genetically modified food which has brought concern as to whether the food originated from genetically modified seeds. Another main concern has been whether the farmers who plant the seeds of these plants have a right to harvest and plant the seeds. Each state has their own law regarding patenting rights, and some may allow certain patenting methods and organisms to be used while others may not. In this essay, attention will be paid towards patenting in Africa. Africa has been known to have issues with food, disease and health. Patenting in Africa is brings about stability and improve the living condition by ensuring that organisms patented can be able to survive; that plants can be able to tolerate the unfavorable conditions of the soil topography (Kankanala, 158, 2007).   There is one issue however; organism patenting seems to do more harm than good. This is bec ause despite the development of these organisms in order to make them more enhanced and beneficial, certain setbacks have proven to shake the foundation of the patenting scheme. For the negative feedbacks that are gotten from these experiments, it is the end user who is suffering, not the inventor. Take a case where certain bacteria is modified, patented and is introduced into a community that has had problems with the plants systems and animals, in that their survival is challenged. If the modified bacteria solution does not go as planned; say after harvesting the crops and consuming them, those who will suffer the most will be the end users. What this means is that scientists are just using people as experimental objects. They do not take responsibility and they must be liable to pay for their wrong doings. In a seemingly good society, they have introduced and organism that instead of doing a positive thing has turned out to be hazardous. It can be argued as a violation, but then again they may argue that it was just an experiment gone wrong. When patenting is done, it is done with the intention of making things and the lives of people more comfortable and lively. When this does not happen; when the opposite of good happens, responsibility is not taken by anyone. Many individuals have become ill because of the consumption of patented bacteria; have become more ill because maybe the virus that was patented has not served its purpose, or

Internet Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing Essay

Internet Vulnerability Assessment and Penetration Testing - Essay Example Only few years back, one could find large numbers of online grocery stores within Florida. Having large numbers of families and elevated levels of Internet penetration, this part of US was considered to be the perfect region to offer this type of facility to the consumers. (Gralla, 2006) However, most of such Net grocers are no more existing and only little grocery sales are carried through this contemporary service. According to a research, merely 20 to 25 per cent of early online shoppers are still using this latest channel. Most of the online buyers of grocery have gone back to conventional grocery shopping. (McAulay, 2009) What exactly was not right? Why have customers rejected online grocery shopping? What features of online shopping pushed them back to conventional way of shopping? And what characteristics of conventional way of shopping attracted them back? These questions will be discussed while evaluating Internet Vulnerability and Penetration within consumers. To answer above mentioned questions, 20 American families with children were chosen. They were asked regularly over the intervening period about their experience of shopping. Some anticipated findings of this piece of research are given below. Internet penetration for shopping is anticipated to increase in the beginning. Time is a crucial reason for choosing internet for grocery shopping – which will prove to be an inadequate resource available for families with children. (Napier, 2005) Online buyers are usually fairly willing to pay little more for the offered facilities of picking and delivering groceries so that they can utilize their valuable time on activities that are more significant for them. Most of the times, internet penetration for online shopping is due to its flexibility. Online buyers think they can buy anything anytime to suit their schedule, 24 hours a day. They do not have to wait for the shop to open or re-open when they have time to shop. Online buyers usually

Utilizing Assessment Rubrics to Evaluate Learning Assignment

Utilizing Assessment Rubrics to Evaluate Learning - Assignment Example Using a rubric, students develop a clear sense of what is required of them on a given assignment. A rubric outlines details such as the length of the assignment, the content, which is important in directing students on what would be relevant or irrelevant if covered (Helvoort 2010, p.27). The rubric is also gives instructions on the referencing requirements. Perhaps the most important use of the rubric is its use as an instrument that defines the standards in every assignment (Hauser and Bowen, 2009). This is such that, by going through the rubric, the student is made aware of what they need to do to garner scores within the highest score brackets. The rubric outlines the way one has to arrange their thoughts in order come up with a paper that attracts good grades, the proper way to reference their work and the grammatical demands (Hauser and Bowen, 2009). In this, tutors are able to aid their students to grasp the standards of the profession (Oakleaf, 2008 p.245) in a concise manner. In addition, students can understand their grades by going through the rubric to discover costly omissions and commissions that marred their ability to score the grades they were aiming for. An effective rubric applies the use of the following three domains. The first, the affective domain, addresses the intersect between the values and beliefs of patients and nurses, and how these apply to the treatment regimen. Secondly is the cognitive domain, addressing the extent of knowledge of nurses. This domain has to do with analysis and application of what is known to the nurse. Finally is the psychomotor domain, addressing the technical skills at the nurse’s disposal (Cecilia, 2013). These domains have to be incorporated into the rubric as demonstrated. A good rubric, according to Oakleaf (2008, p.254) is in synchrony with the learning objectives of the course. This tests the retention and application abilities of the students, that is the cognitive skills of learners. In

Reflection Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 21

Reflection - Essay Example It was easier for me to break down the thesis statement in various paragraphs later on. As a matter of fact, gaining information concerning the pin-pointed arguments was easier. However, skimming the correct claims to back up and support the arguments was the technical aspect of writing. I set a word count as per the points. It was due to this reason that I was able to skim the relevant and most effective information for backing up the arguments. As soon as I was able to add information in the body paragraphs, I noticed that there was an avid need of changing the topic. Initially, I selected the topic that was quite vague. Later on, with the advancement in writing ideas in the paper, I changed my topic too, â€Å"The Passion of Boxing†. The following paragraphs from two versions of my submitted written piece can explain the number of aspects that I had to work on during the re-drafting process. As the older version included the following statement, â€Å"Attending a boxing event in a boxing gym located in our neighborhood introduced me to a group of dedicated fans and boxers. Boxing is a sport that requires dedication, discipline, and communication with coaches and fans given that the game bonds us together, and makes us a family (older version)†. These above mentioned sentences did not present the true meaning effectively. It was due to this reason that I had to change the sentence from the scratch. It will not be incorrect to state that this was the paragraph where I had to make maximum changes for re-drafting. The changed version of the paper is as follows, â€Å"I was introduced to a group of dedicated fans and boxers. The group was very eager to have the time of their lives. All attendees formed a spor ting family, united by their love for the game (newer version)†. As far as language and mechanics were concerned, I noticed that there were a lot of mistakes that I was making while

In the novel Fugitive Pieces by Anne Michaels, how does the second Essay

In the novel Fugitive Pieces by Anne Michaels, how does the second part of the novel comment and reflect on the themes and events of the first part - Essay Example Ben’s life mirrors Jakob’s in some respects. Death is the predominant theme of the novel. At the very onset, the reader is informed of Jakob’s untimely demise in a car-accident. The events unfolded in the subsequent pages are therefore viewed through the eyes of a dead man. Thus the spectre of death looms large over the narrative. Jakob was the aural witness to the savage murder of his parents and the abduction of his beloved sister Bella. From that moment on he is haunted by the constant presence of his sister in his life. He is tormented by his abject ignorance of her fate. He reiterates his belief that the dead wield a permanent influence over the living, â€Å"It’s no metaphor to feel the influence of the dead in the world.†(Michaels, 53) Death makes its presence felt in Ben’s narrative as well. He is a child of the second generation but nevertheless he is a victim of the holocaust. His parents are living reminders of the horrors of the past and their very home is permeated with the remnants of the evil of those dark times. His situation is outlined in Jakob’s description of the mass graves in the first part, â€Å"When the prisoners were forced to dig up the mass graves, the dead entered them through their pores and were carried through their bloodstreams to their brains and heart. And through their blood into another generation.†(52) The role of history and memory in the lives of the protagonists constitutes another theme of the novel and is reiterated in the second part echoing its occurrence in the first part. Jakob and Ben are trapped in their traumatic pasts and there is no hope for fulfilment in their present lives and possibly the future as well. Jakob is repelled by history and its clinical detachment in the face of atrocity and immorality and prefers to seek recourse in the intimate confines of memory. â€Å"History is amoral: events

Representations of Nature or the Nonhuman Animal World in Poetry Essay

Representations of Nature or the Nonhuman Animal World in Poetry - Essay Example As the report declares animal characters and attributes have formed the basis of metaphors for a long time. In other poems, the animal characters mentioned are actual animals because they do not have any deeper meaning than what appears superficially. Some pets highlight different natural conditions to add sense to their themes. Others will choose to present a detailed description of the landscape serving as the setting of the poem. All these serve to augment the ideas of the poet and enable the reader to establish a full connection with the theme of the poem. This discussion stresses that the title of the poem is a metaphorical expression that refers to an animal character, the mouse. The first line of the first stanza highlights that the mouse is caged and is extending its pleas to be accorded freedom. The ‘mouse’ represents the woman in society. Over time, society shunned the cognitive expressions of women and deemed them as lesser individuals with defective cranial capacities. The poet develops an analogy between the infringement done to a mouse through caging and women in society. In the last stanza, the poet mentions destruction as a factor that both mice and men may share. It becomes evident that the use of the ‘mouse’s is both a metaphor and an analogue. Just as the mouse on a cage would virtually be making pleas of freedom, women in the society have often found themselves in a similar situation. In the third stanza, the poet gives the mouse an adjective ‘free-born mouse’ suggesting that durin g birth it was a free creature. Similarly, all human were created free and with certain common gifts. The poet urges society’s oppressive units to refrain from detaining other free creatures. In the ninth stanza of the poem, the poet introduces a different member of the animal kingdom when he says ‘beware, lest in the worm you crush’. The aspect of the worm in this sentence becomes clear after the examination of the second line in the stanza ‘a brother’s soul you may find’. The poet uses the expression of the crushing a worm to represent the despised individuals in society. This expression warns society that it should not consider crushing certain individuals simply because they consider them of minimal value in society (Barbauld 1). William Wordsworth’s â€Å"Tintern Abbey† From the title of the poem, it becomes evident that the poet adored nature and exhibited a deep sense of appreciation for the beautiful scenarios described i n the poem. The poem is a monologue of a narrator expressing the effect of his understanding of nature. For a period of five years, the narrator had not experienced the sight and sound of ‘waters†¦.from Mountain springs. Moreover, he had not seen the ‘steep and lofty cliffs’ (Wordsworth 1). The author goes further to describe his thoughts concerning the ‘the landscape with the quiet of the sky’ and mentions trees such as sycamore, and orchard-tufts. The narrator gives full details of the scenario surrounding him highlighting the numerous ‘hedge-rows’, ‘sportive wood’, ‘houseless woods’ and ‘hermit’s curve’. All these phrases refer to nature and serve to define the landscape as the narrator sees it. The second stanza begins with a focus on the feelings that the memories of nature evoke in the narrator. He describes the sensations, emotions, and

Open the link and answer questions Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Open the link and answer questions - Assignment Example On the other hand, the disadvantage of this law is the difficulty in enforcement as not all motor vehicles could be ensured of being cell phone free. Further, a driver who could have responded to emergency situations through wireless phones could not be contacted, when immediately needed and thereby could delay any required and immediate response. Question 2. Are you for or against the state law? Why or why not? Personally, I am in favor of the enactment of the state law because there have been several accidents that have been attributed to cell phone use during driving. According to Lance, â€Å"a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gives the first concrete evidence of the effects of cell phone use on injury crashes. IIHS revealed recently that drivers using phones are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves† (Lance par. 3). The proof that more states that considered banning cell phone use while driving (Bloomberg Bu sinessweek) attests the need to pass the law to ensure the safety, not only of the drivers but also of the general public. Works Cited Bloomberg Businessweek. Cell Phone Laws. July 2005. Web.

Microsoft’s Lost Decade Essay Example for Free

Microsoft’s Lost Decade Essay Introduction Microsoft’s story serves as a prime example of the pitfalls of success. In this case we can analyze, critique, and make recommendations to avoid a similar disaster in the future. While they were really the sole company to open the window into computer technology for the everyday user, but over the last decade appears to have been a victim of its own success. Once so dominant in the industry which is basically created on its own, today cannot be described as â€Å"cutting edge†. The name no longer resonates with younger generations. Evidence of this struggling success can be seen in its stock prices which have completely plateaued and even began to drop recently. What happened? Why are they no longer creating wonderful technological advances for its consumers? In order to compete in the technology industry, a company needs to continuously be innovation for its customers; Microsoft was not doing that. Despite facing a challenge in IBM in the beginning when Microsoft first entered the industry, who was also getting overly confident and comfortable with its position in the industry. It actually appears as though Microsoft has reenacted the problems of their former nemesis. Clearly not focused on development or bringing out a new product, and their new philosophy as expressed by the most recent CEO Steve Balmer about a decade ago was we won’t be first to cool but we will be first to profit. In other words, they don’t care about coming out with some cool new technology, they will wait for somebody else to do that, and then buy their way into that market. Obviously the major problem with that is if somebody else is coming into that product first, that company will most likely lock up the market. It is possible that Microsoft has its hands in too many things. There is no focus. Microsoft doesn’t know what kind of company it wants to be. This is evident by the competition microsft is facing. One division is competing with SONY, while another group is battling apple, while even other teams are competing with Google for example. It’s possibl e that what the company really needs is a fresh start; New atmosphere, new leadership, new goals. Microsoft has great products in Xbox and connect, but inside the massive† machine† that it has become they are just small underdeveloped projects. So again, it is obvious that there are issues to be looked at here, but somebody in charge missed the signals and let this happen. The most telling story from the case is that Microsoft in fact had ideas about the first e-reader, the very technology that is today very popular in the Kindle and iPad, as early as the late 1990s. Unfortunately for the company, the story tells of a meeting in which Bill Gates gave this new technology the â€Å"thumbs down† because the screen didn’t look like windows. Do the customers care about that? No. So that was a huge missed opportunity. The leadership was blind to that element, which dictates that for the customers’ needs to be addressed first and foremost. As a technology company the goal should be to â€Å"create† what is needed. Microsoft started doing things th e other way around. Windows started getting so complicated because they overloaded the engineering aspect to create things that will look good, not perform well. What it has come to at this point it seem is there is no way for Microsoft to compete at this stage. Everything within the company, including the employees appear to be almost â€Å"weighed down† by what can almost be describes as a massive bureaucracy with far too many meetings and memos. Microsoft’s â€Å"law of large numbers† is failing. In order to fix the causes of their problems, we must follow the symptoms back to the root causes and make changes there. On the surface, it appears their issues are due to bad management style, poor organizational structure and a generally counter-productive culture that strained relationships between the â€Å"old guard† and the â€Å"new blood† of the company. To get a better look at the cause of these symptoms, I will follow the eight operations management principals. Part 1: Critique Unity of Purpose Unity of purpose within an organization is definitely not something that a manager can ignore when running a business with goals. It is imperative to remember that to function as a goal oriented team, all parts of the various positions must be working together as one. This is where I will begin our observation of the Microsoft empire and the decade of struggle that diverted it from the success that it once enjoyed. When looking at how Microsoft was handled by Bill Gates, there are undoubtedly some moments that suggest that the unity of purpose was not clearly defined and never adequately addressed to the degree that it needed. We can start at the root of the problem to learn the origins of what Microsoft ultimately faced: namely discord and disharmony in the work place. Looking at the early success of the business, we notice that Microsoft created an innovative and personalized approach to the computer that made it significantly more user-friendly. The initial public reactions were almost unanimously positive due to the fact that the product was revolutionary and had changed the personal technology landscape for the better. Interestingly, Microsoft began this venture in the shadow of IBM, who was also getting overly confident and comfortable with its position in the industry at the time. It actually appears as though Microsoft has reenacted the problems of their former nemesis over the past decade. As time progressed for Microsoft, however, there came to be a noticeable drop off in success of the company. Steve Jobs and his exciting, strong and, most importantly, new Apple brand seemingly booted Microsoft to the curb, out of the public’s eye. It is easy to assume that Microsoft was simply outmanned by Apple, that the latter company came into the picture and took the market share away from Gates and his supposed dynasty. This, however, does not describe the true cause of the downfall suffered by Microsoft. The real cause that sent this company on the track to irrelevance was due in large part to the lack of unity in the business purpose. Microsoft was clearly not focused on development or bringing out a new product, and their new philosophy, as expressed by the most recent CEO Steve Balmer about a decade ago, was â€Å"we won’t be first to cool but we will be first to profit†. In other words, they don’t care about coming out with some cool new technology, they will wait for somebody else to do that, and then buy their way into that market. Obviously the first problem with that is if somebody else is coming into that product first, those companies will most likely lock up the market. Additionally this completely throws off the company’s purpose of unity! What is a technology company if it isn’t researching, developing, and creating for its customers a new technology? The answer is very simple: Microsoft was not united around a general value or principal. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that Microsoft has its hands in too many things. There is no focus. Microsoft doesn’t know what kind of company it wants to be. This is evident by the competition microsoft is facing. One division is competing with SONY, while another group is battling apple, while even other teams are competing with Google for example. It’s possible that what the company really needs is a fresh start; New atmosphere, new leadership, new goals. Microsoft has great products in Xbox and connect, but inside the massive† machine† that it has become they are just small underdeveloped projects. Once upon a time, Bill gates had a vision. Gates wrote an operating program using the computer language called BASIC which proved to be a wonderful innovation. Driven by his new product, and with that his new purpose, his company took off and left everybody else in the dust. Gates was relentless and demanded the same intense commitment from everyone he hired. Back then they were united each member of the group was invest for the right rea son, which was creating a new product that people wanted before anybody else created it. Neither Gates nor Allen had management skills and business savvy that were needed to help the booming company in its infant days. Once the company started doubling and tripling in size year after year, the company could not keep focus on one particular goal or direction. Unity happens when leaders are committed to and engaged in the process of building a united, winning team. It requires focus, time, and energy. Unfortunately as we’ll discuss a little later on, focus may have been another contributing factor that hindered Microsoft from being the company Gates idealized in his head. Unity occurs when team members care more about the vision, purpose and health of the organization than they do their own personal agenda. Changing the mindset is essential. Unity happens when each person in the company can clearly see how their personal vision and effort contributes to the overall vision and success of the team. This involves meaningful conversations between the levels of management as well as between engineers and sales people. Unity of Purpose results when you weed out the negativity that sabotages far too many organizations. All of these things were issues at Microsoft that hindered it from having one united goal as a company. Having the right people in charge of making decisions can make a world of difference when trying to unite the group behind a cause, which will lead me to the next principle of Operations Management, Human Resources. Invest in Human Resources Microsoft needed to invest in human resources to implement and maintain plans and policies. Strategically placed investments in human resources will develop a more skilled, innovative, productive and loyal workforce thus providing an organization with a competitive advantage over a less progressive competitor. Investment in human capital offers both short and long term gains that help produce not only skilled, productive employees, but those that are both loyal and ethical. Microsoft’s goal should have been to increase the ownership of employees work by providing the right incentives. Already we see evidence that the company will fall prey to the same arrogance that dethroned IBM. There were signs but Microsoft didn’t see them until it was too late. When it comes to your employees, long-term thinking guides an organization. That’s where Microsoft missed the mark by a long shot. Microsoft was focused on too many short term goals. Employees at Microsoft had an obsession with revenue and growth, and it’s no surprise why! Almost every employee received a stake in the company through stock options. When the share price went up, everyone got richer. When it went down, everyone suffered. Everyone ran full speed in hopes of pushing up the stock price a little bit more. Internal competition became a huge issue with Microsoft’s employees as well. The perception of stability within the workforce is especially beneficial during periods of economic decline and or organizational restructuring. The perceptions of stability as offered by organizational culture will often help retain employees during recessionary periods and motivate everyone during stable times as well. This was potentially the biggest issue in house for Microsoft. The days of shoulder to should teams innovating and thriving within the company were gone. A â€Å"financial fissure† penetrated the already strained relationships between th e â€Å"old guard† and the â€Å"new blood†. People were becoming destructively competitive. Its was a sink or swim environment and drowning someone else in order to survive was the name of the game at Microsoft. Something had to be done. Companies can obtain a competitive advantage if they utilize strategic human resources investment practices. If the operation is a primary manufacturing facility investments such as group bonus pay-outs based on overall group performance or attendance for example, could provide an initial increase in output. Furthermore, empowerment of the team by allowing aspects of total quality management to take place will help build confidence and a feeling of responsibility within the group. If the operation is research and development oriented then the culture should be based on rewards focused on those who develop and produce. In either case whether the culture is based on group or individual performance, the overall goals must be focused on the retention, growth of, and maximum utilization of talent. Microsolf is a company with all departments and people with both typed of jobs. The organizations that are best able to manipulate the corporate culture into one of maximum benefit will become significantly more competitive than those who do not, and Microsoft did not. At Microsoft it got so bad that one employee was quoted saying â€Å"We couldn’t be focused anymore on developing technology that was effective for consumers†. It had become all about, â€Å"how am I going to make money†. HR should have used training and development to invest in their employees. Make them feel valued, offer appropriate promotions as incentives for great work and loyalty, and place a greater emphasis on teamwork. The cut-throat atmosphere does not generate positive results, and Microsoft’s organizational structure was such that executives and engineers were from a different generation with cutthroat mentalities. This only results in self immolating chaos. The real villain here was the wrongly implemented Stack ranking system. Managers had a rest and vest mentality which bread ill feelings and jealousy all around. These factors were naturally at variance with team work and innovation. A better reward systems should focus on facilitating cooperation, enhancing long term thinking, tolerating mistakes because they are learning tools, and not letting egos get involved. Whatever Microsoft determines it’s goals and purpose is going to be, it is important for the companies directors to remember that investing in the appropriate human resources is much more than making sure the new employees don’t impact your current paychecks and health insurance. It is the definition of the company, its culture, and its employees performance. With the right culture instilled in the company, employees might have a chance to work on focus for an-unmotivated Microsoft. Focus Microsoft was lacking, and desperately needed focus. Sustainable growth is important. Such a pattern emerges in organizations that are superior in executing their business plan and can maintain a compounding positive trajectory in their revenue development. Organizations that are so oriented build success patterns that breed a culture of confidence and a competitive advantage. This is how growth becomes sustainable. Such a pattern is of primary importance to any focus-oriented company. Sustained growth in a business comes about primarily because key employees are focused on performance factors they can impact and they feel motivated to do so. That focus leads to execution. When sustained, that pattern brings about the results and success the business plan calls for. This being said, Microsoft was committing all the wrong crimes against successful business focus. Vague accountability on the part of higher management made it impossible for the rest of the employees to envision goals a nd work with a purpose. A major contributor to this at Microsoft was the fact that they held too many meetings. Meetings in turn slows new product development and staggers innovation. Just as with e-books, opportunities for major product developments slipped away from Microsoft. Windows CE, an operating system distinct from Windows that was originally used for pocket devices like personal digital assistants, would ultimately be the foundation of the mobile operating system that would power Microsoft’s first smartphones. But despite the fact that Microsoft had the jump on its competitors with Windows CE, it still lost the race for the wildly successful smartphones. In addition to too many meetings, Microsoft had too many managers. Current and former executives said, each year the intensity and destructiveness of the game playing grew worse as employees struggled to beat out their co-workers for promotions, bonuses, or just survival. Microsoft’s managers pumped up the volume on the viciousness around each other and to their subordinates. What resulted, when combined with the bitterness about financial disparities among employees that already existed, the slow pace of development, and the power of the Windows and Office divisions to kill innovation. All in all, it was a toxic stew of internal antagonism and warfare fueled by the generation gap between the old, established managers and the young, aspiring engineers. That â€Å"warfare atmosphere† was only the beginning of the distraction. At Microsoft every employee had a smiley face icon to monitor stock prices at every moment of the day. When shares increased, the face smiled, but when they fell it frowned. This placed way too much focus on shareholders, profits, and employees job security. There was simply not enough emphasis on the customer, and nothing was focused on the company’s future. Futher issues at Microsoft included obsession to capitalize on every opportunity to gather new revenue, teams of people fighting shoulder-to-shoulder had been replaced with backstabbing and selfish goals. Microsoft even went as far to save money, the company no longer helped with towels in showers at work. Why is that a focus at all!? That’s such a pathetic problem to have at an industry-leading technology company. To achieve quality, you have to define it. Focus is a definition and you have to make sure that definition is disseminated throughout the rank and file. Its the job of any company to be clear about the nonnegotiable core values. A lack of focus creates estuaries and cloudy waters that are confusing to navigate and surely hinder innovation. Visibility Management The lack of focus we attribute to the poor leadership transitions us to our next issue with Microsoft, that there is not a fair, balanced model in the company with solid visibility management. Natural self-promoters, like many of the managers and executives at Microsoft, instinctively exploit opportunities to make themselves visible. In today’s competitive corporate environment, being good at what you do isn’t enough to earn your keep or what you’re worth. You have to practice â€Å"visibility management,† letting people know who you are and what you do well. Managing visibility is an integral component of modern success and career management. Microsoft had extremely poor visibility management for a number of key reasons. For starters Microsoft did not recognize or enforce fairness throughout its organizational structure of employees. The organizational structure followed a stack ranking system, like a forced bell curve model, that puts individual goals at complete variance with teamwork. The managers who were supposed to be making decisions and conveying them to their sales and engineer teams were in constant meetings instead of making information available regarding any management decisions. Microsoft was lacking â€Å"new blood† in its management. The divisions between the old timers and the young innovators had grown wildly out of control. Corporate culture is built from the combined experiences of the members of the organization working in harmony with clear visibility. This effects the results of the organization’s efforts, and helps the psychological tone set by top management and every level of management beneath it. All of these factors are expressed in, and some are caused by, visibility management, and poor management behavior will always affect the culture negatively. Organizational culture is built on the behaviors of the members of the culture, and poor management visibility and behavior at any level naturally affects the levels subordinate to it. An abusive or clueless top or middle manager can create a culture of negativism and poor performance that extends beneath them all the way to the bottom of the organizational pyramid, and even to supplier organizations. Anyone who has worked in more than a couple of bureaucracies has most likely experienced or witnessed this syndrome. At Microsoft one employee was quoted saying â€Å"If you just add up the time people spent sending angry e-mails about the towels disappearing †¦ I expect they lost a lot more money than the cost savings from the towels.† Even once the towels returned, the bitterness about cost-cutting didn’t end. What was management’s plan? Nobody seemed to know; there was no communication or visibility within the company. Even after that Microsoft abandoned its gold-plated health-insurance plan. That was the enticement that had brought some employees there in the first place. Whiteboards grew scarcer. It even became harder to find office supplies. Many of the problems from bureaucracy came down to a simple reality: The young hotshots from the 1980s, techies who had joined the company in their 20s and 30s, had become middle-aged managers in their 40s and 50s. And, some younger engineers said a good number of the bosses just didn’t understand the burgeoning class of computer users who had been children when Microsoft opened its doors. When younger employees tried to point out emerging trends among their friends, supervisors sometimes just waved them away. None of management’s procedures or systems seemed to make any sense to the rest of the subordinate company. Corporate policy at Microsoft gave some select few millions, while others got bare minimum pay. Too many employees were seeking management spots for the wrong reasons. Management should have been more humble, transparent, and outward gazing. Visibility management works with facts, not ego and corporate politics. Fix Causes Corporate politics lead to nothing else if not fear and prejudice within the organization. Current and former executives said that each year the intensity and destructiveness of the game playing grew worse as employees struggled to beat out their co-workers for promotions, bonuses, or just survival. Microsoft had, in an effort to motivate by competition, created a back-stabbing environment of brutal proportions in the corporate world. Management is supposed to be courageous and inspiring, â€Å"not pumped up the volume on the viciousness† as was the case at Microsoft. It is usually the leader with the most power who provokes the most fear. With leaders worried about outbursts and other nasty behavior from those with even more power than they have, imagine the toll the fear factor must take on the people who wield substantially less authority. At a place like Microsoft, those people make up the vast majority. Although Ballamer would espouse that they challenge their people, man y employees would argue those challenges feel threatening. The truth is most likely employees blossom when challenged and wither when threatened. There is no data showing that anxious, fearful employees are more creative and productive, but there is data proving that employees in a threatening environment are less engaged, less loyal and for the most part miserable. Civility is not a term we typically associate with corporate life or use to describe the everyday world in workplaces around the globe. But consider the potential impact on corporate culture, and society as a whole, if civility were not just expected, but championed by senior leadership. Microsoft had a forced bell curve of talent that doesn’t actually represent the production and innovation capabilities of the company. This creates achingly slow progress and in an atmosphere that has every unit declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor, employees were focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies. Management needs to listen to the ideas of the young generation and implement a better system. An example of when this would have done Microsoft well was in 1997, when AOL introduced its instant-messenger program, called AIM, a precursor to the texting functions on cell phones. Two years later, Microsoft followed with a similar program, called MSN Messenger. In 2003, a young developer noticed that friends in college signed up for AIM exclusively and left it running most of the time. The developer concluded that no young person would switch from AIM to MSN Messenger, which did not have the short-message feature. He spoke about the problem to his boss, a middle-aged man. The supervisor dismissed the developer’s concerns as silly. Why would young people care about putting up a few words? Anyone who wanted to tell friends what they were doing could write it on their profile page, he said. Meaning users would have to open the profile pages, one friend at a time, and search for a status message, if it was there at all. Unfortunately because his manager didn’t know or didn’t believe how young people were using messenger programs, nothing was done. Management was instilling fear instead of developing for the long term and listing to employees about what customers really want. Know Your Customers As we have discussed, the culture at Microsoft was complacent. Managers were closed to criticism, arrogant about their roles of leadership, and obsessed with stock prices and short term goals. The very purpose for Microsoft’s existence was to provide new and wonderful technology to people; those people being the customers. Those people dictate the needs, not managers, and Microsoft lost touch with who they were serving. It’s something critical to ANY and EVERY business: knowing your customers and the products they want. You can learn a great deal about your customers by talking to them. Asking them why theyre buying or not buying, what they may want to buy in the future and asking what other needs they have can give a valuable picture of whats important to them. Despite a multi-year head start, the big profits on innovative new technologies would eventually go to Amazon and Apple. Why? Because they gave the customers the next new thing in technology. For example, Bill G ates gave the E-reader the thumbs down because he was focused on what the product did and looked like, not how his consumers would love it. Apparently â€Å"he didn’t like the interface because it didn’t look like windows.† The point on this invention was to have the book, alone, appear on the full screen. Putting it into an electronic book, Gates suggested, would do nothing but undermine the customers experience. Unfortunately what gates didn’t understand is that it’s not undermining them if that’s what they want! The death of the e-book effort was not simply the consequence of a desire for immediate profits, but also all kinds of personal prejudices at work. Management missed the beat repeatedly while â€Å"meeting† to pursue the next thing it would release. Microsoft was only hurting itself. As discussed earlier they were far too obsessed with revenues and stock prices of old products. Steve Stone, a founder of the technology group, said about Microsoft’s attention to customer wants: â€Å"We couldn’t be focused anymore on developing technology that was effective for consumers. Instead, all of a sudden we had to look at this and say, ‘How are we going to use this to make money?’ And it was impossible.† Indeed, executives said, Microsoft failed repeatedly to jump on emerging technologies because of the company’s fealty to Windows and Office. â€Å"Windows was the god—everything had to work with Windows,† said Stone. â€Å"Ideas about mobile computing with a user experience that was cleaner than with a P.C. were deemed unimportant by a few powerful people in that division, and they managed to kill the effort.† Indeed, executives said, Microsoft failed repeatedly to jump on emerging technologies because of the company’s fealty to Windows and Office. There was a feeling that â€Å"Windows was the god—everything had to work with Windows,† despite what the customer wanted. While Apple continues to gain market share in many products, Microsoft has lost share in Web browsers, high-end laptops and smartphones. Despite billions in investment, its Xbox line is still at best an equal contender in the game console business. It first ignored and then stumbled in personal music players until that business was locked up by Apple. Another problem with Microsoft delivering to the customer’s needs is whenever Microsoft spies yet another potential market which it thinks is ripe for taking over it generally announces its intention to move aggressively into that market. Microsoft frequently announces new products for these markets that they will ship soon regardless of whether or not they have any genuine interest in actually shipping said products. What this frequently leads to is that people stop buying software in this market because they want to wait for the Microsoft version. Unfortunately if Microsoft sees the market drying up they usually just walk away and never deliver their promised products. The end result is that the small software companies in these markets take a very big hit and frequently go under while consumers end up without their promised product. In the past, Microsoft has fueled amazing growth by leveraging its way into new markets in order to acquire new customers. The problem that Microsoft has been facing recently is that they tried to dominate so many different markets that there are not enough markets left that can be captured for the purpose of sustaining the growth that their shareholders require. Microsoft has turned its sights back on its existing customers. Microsoft is finding creative ways to draw more money out of its existing customers, often times with hostile results. One example of Microsofts hostility to its existing customers came in September, 2000. Microsoft demanded that the Virginia Beach government account for all copies of Microsoft software that were in use within the government and provide proof of purchase for each product. The reason? Nick Psyhogeos, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney for Microsoft, said the firm has found that government agencies sometimes inadvertently acquire counterfeit software. There was no mention of a reason why this particular city government was singled out they were not investigated because of something which they did to arouse suspicion, but simply because they were a large organization that Microsoft hoped they could frighten more money out of. The city was presumed guilty until proven innocent and this cost the tax payers a great deal of money as the city reassigned 25 percent of its technical work force to work specifically on the task of generating the information demanded by Microsoft. Microsoft is hunting down it’s customers, not providing for them. Know Your Competition In the competitive corporate world it is imperative that a company knows it’s competition so that you don’t get blindsided. It is crucial to know who they are and what their strengths/weaknesses are. It would also be smart to know what their primary products are that compete with yours and how they access talent that you might want as well. Recently Microsoft’s strategy has just been killing off competitors by either buying them or their technologies. Once again, a good example of this is shown with Microsofts jump into the web browser market. Microsoft was late to catch on to the fact that the web was going to revolutionize the way people used computers and once they finally woke up they were dangerously close to having their Windows monopoly destroyed by the greatly reduced importance of operating systems that a web based paradigm would produce. They needed to do something fast. They allegedly tried to carve up the market with Netscape by getting Netscape to ag ree to stop making Windows web browsers while Microsoft would only make Windows web browsers. Fortunately for consumers, Netscape did not agree to the deal and the web was saved from becoming a Microsoft only technology as surely would have happened. This made it even more urgent for Microsoft to lock up this new market right away while it was still time. Lacking any decent technology of their own, Microsoft licensed the Mosaic web browser from Spyglass which they turned into Internet Explorer. The weapon that Microsoft fashioned in their attempt to defeat Netscape wasnt even their own, but technology they bought from someone else. This was not a one time thing either. What this meant for Microsoft was that they got to keep their monopoly for a little bit longer, but it had much more dire consequences for consumers. It meant that consumers were now stuck with a very buggy browser and file system viewer because Internet Explorer wasn’t prepared to compete with competition. Who are Microsoft’s main competitors right now? According to CEO Steve Ballmer Google, Apple, and Oracle and the front runners. Google is a serious threat because not only does it have its hand in multiple markets, it has the ability to jump in and quickly grab significant market share. Gmail went public only about three years ago, but already it’s the third-largest webmail service behind Hotmail and Yahoo. Google Apps is up-and-coming, having won a few key contracts in the enterprise market. Microsoft’s release of Office Web Apps shows the company is worried about Google, which is touting apps as an easy-to-use-from-anywhere service with an easier and less expensive business model. Android has accomplished a heckuva feat, jumping from nearly no market share a year ago to being the platform of choice for about 10 percent of new smart phones sold. Chrome has been consistently eating away at Internet Explorer since its launch nearly two years ago. And with App Engine, Google has been making a push in the cloud-platform space to which Microsoft, with Windows Azure, just showed up this winter. And then there’s Chrome OS, the browser-based operating system that Google is expected to launch by late autumn. It’s unknown how successful the novel idea will be, especially with the incoming tablet market, but considering Google’s success in other sectors it could very well grab netbooks away from Windows. Apple was nearly dead 10 years ago and has surged back to pass up Microsoft in market capitalization, and Apple did it with consumers. When you’re talking competition between Microsoft and Apple, you’re mainly talking about hand-held devices. Windows is still on more than 90 percent of computers and Safari, Apple’s Web browser, essentially has the same market share as Macintosh computers. Apple is leading the charge for mobile computing. And as Google can attest, there’s plenty of room in the market to capitalize. Microsoft, for its part, has not been able to do that lately. As Apple and Android surge in popularity, Windows Mobile hemorrhages market share. Microsoft must deliver a knock-out hit with Windows Phone 7 this holiday season. Then there’s the iPad. Apple has succeeded where others, namely Microsoft, failed to recognize the need 10 years ago. Apple has opened the door for a potentially huge new market. What really agitates Microsoft is that PCs are no longer the only incarnation of personal computing. In the MicroNokia deal, Microsoft sees an opportunity to be a player in the new personal computing incarnation, a willful answer to its competition. Microsoft tried to ignore tablets and a â€Å"fad† but will soon need to recognize the potential and get on top of that if it wishes to once again dominate the industry. Total Quality Management It is absolutely necessary for Microsoft to base quality decisions on facts, not the ego’s and ideas of executives. The outputs that they wish to hold important must be measurable. Microsoft would also do well to empower its employees on the customer interaction level. These are the employees closest to the customer and will provide the most effective feedback for future innovation. These future innovations must also be of the highest quality as that is one of the key component to total quality control. The reason quality has gained such prominence is that organizations have gained an understanding of the high cost of poor quality. Quality affects all aspects of the organization and has dramatic cost implications. The most obvious consequence occurs when poor quality creates dissatisï ¬ ed customers and eventually leads to loss of business. However, quality has many other costs, which can be divided into two categories. The ï ¬ rst category consists of costs necessary for achieving high quality, which are called quality control costs. These are of two types: prevention costs and appraisal costs. The second category consists of the cost consequences of poor quality, which are called quality failure costs. Companies that consider quality important invest heavily in prevention and appraisal costs in order to prevent internal and external failure costs. The earlier defects are found, the less costly they are to correct. Another massively important factor of Total Quality Control is the quality and happiness of the employees. A good way to ensure that is to be encouraging to your employees and offer praise when appropriate. Thank employees for doing a good job and let them know that you value them. Should something go wrong or someone makes a mistake, don’t â€Å"punish† the person. That was a big fear at Microsoft that went on too long. Punishing people only makes things worse in that the employee may become angry and bitter and may want to sabotage their work to get back at the company, or leave to work for the competition. Too many meetings at Microsoft and the fear of a declining stock price did not create an atmosphere that created â€Å"quality†. Management needed to tolerate mistakes and be more outward gazing for innovations, customer needs, and new business models. Part 2: Recommendations Bad corporate culture happens, but it can be corrected. While it is natural for bad organizational culture to develop, this tendency can be countered and a more positive and productive organizational culture can be produced, though it requires savvy and introspective management. It is within the power of each of us to do the introspective work and be more savvy, as managers or regular employees. In doing so you will improve everyone, and give each individual increased capacity to influence the organizational culture in a more positive direction. The greatest threat to an organization’s success is not always the competition. Often, it is what a company does to itself. Because of fear, companies become plagued with barriers and bureaucracy that limit success, crush employees, and infuse frustration and a sense of futility across the enterprise. It starts with a narrowing of focus, which leads to the first level of bureaucracy: parochialism. Parochialism exists when managers and departments begin to view the world through the filter of their own little silo, and build walls make of rules and policies to protect their turf. This was definitely the case at Microsoft with the Stack ranking system. When looking at how Microsoft was handled by Bill Gates, there are undoubtedly some moments that suggest that the unity of purpose was not clearly defined and never adequately addressed to the degree that it needed. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that Microsoft has its hands in too many things. There is no focus. Microsoft doesn’t know what kind of company it wants to be. This is evident by the competition Microsoft is facing. Unity happens when leaders are committed to and engaged in the process of building a united, winning team. It requires focus, time, and energy. Unfortunately as we’ll discuss a little later on, focus may have been another contributing factor that hindered Microsoft from being the company Gates idealized in his head. Unity occurs when team members care more about the vision, purpose and health of the organization than they do their own personal agenda. Changing the mindset is essential. Unity happens when each person in the company can clearly see how their personal vision and effort contributes to the overall vision and success of the team. This involves meaningful conversations between the levels of management as well as between engineers and sales people. Unity of Purpose results when you weed out the negativity that sabotages far too many organizations. All of these things were issues at Microsoft that hindered it from having one united goal as a company. Having the right people in charge of making decisions can make a world of difference when trying to unite the group behind a cause, especially a business cause. Microsoft needs to invest in human resources to implement and maintain plans and policies. Strategically placed investments in human resources will develop a more skilled, innovative, productive and loyal workforce thus providing an organization with a competitive advantage over a less progressive competitor. Investmen t in human capital will offer Microsoft both short and long term gains to help produce not only skilled, productive employees, but also loyal and ethical employees for the long-term. Microsoft’s goal must now be to increase the ownership of employees work by providing the right incentives through HR. Especially when it comes to your employees, long-term thinking guides an organization. That’s where Microsoft missed the mark in the past and needs to focus now. Microsoft was focused on too many short term goals in the past. The vicious internal competitions need to be eliminated from Microsoft if they want to create a productive work environment. This was potentially the biggest issue in house for Microsoft. Companies can obtain a competitive advantage if they utilize strategic human resources investment practices. The real villain here was the wrongly implemented stack ranking system. Managers had a rest and vest mentality which bread ill feelings and jealousy all around. These factors were naturally at variance with team work and innovation. I recommend a better reward system that will focus on facilitating cooperation, enhancing long term thinking, tolerating mistakes because they are learning tools, and not let egos get involved. Whatever Microsoft determines it’s goals and purpose is going to be, it is important for the companies directors to remember that investing in the appropriate human resources is much more than making sure the new employees don’t impact your current paychecks and health insurance. Microsoft needs a better focus on what they are about and their position in the technology industry. These will come with a well taken care of their employee base first. I recommend they invest into a few basic human needs to help their organization stay productive, engaged and, happy during times of angst and uncertainty which inevitably come in the corporate world of today. The first focus with is to make a connection with the employees. Talking about emotions in the workplace can cause executives to get uneasy. Have you ever noticed that you never hear managers saying, Please dont get so excited or Please quit being so happy? The reality is that emotions are at the center of everything we do. The leadership challenge is not to avoid them, but instead to ignite the positive ones. The secret of getting people more engaged in their work is for their leaders to become more engaged with them. That means being willing to show up emotionally as well as intellectually. Human connection isnt a nice thing to have; its a must-have. Meaningful connections provide people with the internal fortitude they need to stay productive during tough times. Microsoft needs to be more connected to its people, and they also want them to be connected to one another. The way to do that is by talking, with real spoken words, not e-mail edicts, asking people how theyre doing and actually listening to their answers, and by providing them with opportunities to interact with one another. Corporate parties, public promotions etc will go a long was for the morale at Microsoft. Providing context and meaning to the tasks at hand will do a lot for the employees at Microsoft as well. Everyone wants to know that they make a difference in the world. When you put someones work into a meaningful context, you tap into the deepest yearning of his or her soul. The challenge for Microsoft is that most peoples days are so hectic and their jobs so compartmentalized that they often miss the larger story of how their work touches the work of others in the company, and the customers around the world. Leaders who reframe daily tasks by providing personal context quell the angst of uncertainty by giving their employees something more meaningful to think about. The best thing for Microsoft to do is to offer professional employees an incentive package that includes a bonus based on the firms gross revenue. When you bring in more, everyone gets rewarded. But dont make the mistake of tying bonus comp to practice profitability. Profit sharing seems like a good idea but it often c reates resentment by employees who dont have any control over profits. Every time an executive takes a vacation as a business trip or buys a new computer they dont really need, Microsoft employees will resent it. Bonuses based on revenues create a team environment where everyone gets rewarded for their contributions to growth. This is the ultimate motivator for many professional planner, young and old, regardless of business level. As businesses grow and become more complex, a second level of bureaucracy is reached: territorialism. While parochialism is about protecting a department from outsiders, territorialism is about controlling those inside the silo. The third and final level of bureaucracy is empire building, which is a response to perceived threats to a department’s ability to be self-sufficient. These barriers cost organizations a fortune in inefficiency, turnover, waste, and demoralization, and Microsoft is guilty of these on the highest level! Tearing down these barriers is difficult, but it can be done. I recommend resetting rules and policies, and refocusing on the ultimate mission of the organization. Territorialism can be eliminated by creating true empowerment, along with appropriate levels of accountability. Microsoft must also create a culture of courage, to enable employees to take advantage of these new freedoms and accountabilities. In the past managers definitely took advantage of their powers, and didn’t communicate to their employees appropriately. Leadership must refocus on mission success rather than just checking off their part of the process, manage reference points, and engage employees. I am confident that by doing all of these things, Microsoft can begin to become fearless, and unstoppable. Microsoft messed up internally, but also missed a number of opportunities. While Microsoft dreams of Apple-style successes with consumers, the truth is, with only one exception, consumers dont care about Microsoft in the slightest. Microsoft does, of course, make one successful consumer product, at least from a perception standpoint, and thats the Xbox 360. Today, Microsoft is being chipped away by competitors from all sides, like a mighty shark being taken down by a pack of hungry piranhas. Microsoft is just letting this happen because the company simply moves too slowly, whether its entering new markets, updating existing products, or something internal. I have read a number of recommendations in articles and online about Microsoft, and I happen to agree that Microsoft is so big that the very notion of there being a Microsoft is absurdly simplistic. This is instead a collection of often massive warring fiefdoms that dont just ignore each other but in some notable cases actually actively work against each other. Even more problematic, perhaps, Microsofts businesses are so diverse that many have nothing to do with each other. So my advice is to split up this company into two or three baby Microsofts, perhaps al ong consumer, business, and developer lines. None of these brands should have any influence from Steve Ballmer as well. Replacing Ballmer is no easy task, and while its not the epic problem that the software giant confronted when Bill Gates left, Microsofts need for new leadership will require a team, not an individual. It’s possible Microsoft doesnt need a business guy at the top, and I would recommend it needs another guy who understands technology. That way Microsoft’s managers will stop smothering good ideas. Microsoft needs to say â€Å"Yes† to good ideas more frequently. This can only happen within an organization that actually listens and rewards the forward thinkers, places like Apple and Google, who happen to be doing very well in the market right now. â€Å"Microsoft is now in the ironic position to brand itself as David to Apples Goliath, the counterculture to Apples mainstream†. I want Microsoft to turn the tables on the very upstart company that used to think different,† and I recommend Microsoft turn the page and begin this decade anew, learning from its own mistakes. Bibliography and Reference Links * Greer, Charles S. An Investment Perspective of Human Resources, Strategic Human Resources Management, (2001): 1. * Greer, Charles S. An Investment Perspective of Human Resources, Strategic HumanResources Management, (2001): 5 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57471170-75/microsofts-ballmer-challenges-vanity-fairs-lost-decade-claim/ * http://oneffectivemanagement.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/where-does-bad-corporate-culture-come-from-and-can-it-be-corrected/ * Civility: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-prefontaine/corporate-leaders-must-re_1_b_1437445.html * Not shipping said product: http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html * Competiton: http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2010/06/03/ballmer-and-microsofts-main-competitors-are/ * David to Apple Goliath: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/tech/innovation/fixing-microsoft/index.html