Who better to identify and resolve company problems than the people who work in the organization and know the company best? Delaney and Huselid agree: "Job or work structures have also been argued to enhance firm performance by allowing skilled and motivated employees to become more involved in determining what work is to be done and how it is to be performed." (Delaney, Huselid, 1996) The situation of the organization determines what and to what degree changes need to be made. To be effective, a change may be small or minor. On the other hand, sweeping, systematic changes may be necessary for the improvements necessary. Bowen and Lawley III force the point: "Quality improvement may require changes in mission structure, job design, management practices, and every other facet of the [HR] organization." (Bowen, Lawler III, 1992) Another necessary effective change is the attitude that change is welcomed. If an organization will truly adopt and effective quality change, "the value of improvement must be ingrained in the [corporate] culture." (Bowen, Lawler III, 1992)

In conclusion, change is crucial. It demands preparation. It takes research. It takes courage. Change is only good if one is interested in remaining and attaining success. The suggestion is not to change everything because traditions are valuable. Predicting the outcomes of change is vital as well. Organizations cannot effect change and not track the results. How would an organization know if the change was an effective use of time and assets? If the problem remains or if the original problem is gone, but as a consequence, other problems arise, the change was not effective.

Performance excellence culture seems intuitive and logical. Though it is, most organizations do not pursue it. Executives make feel change cost too much time and money. Executives desire the bulk of the organization's profits. They do not wish the profit used toward making the working lives of the workers better. It is fundamental of capitalism. Capitalism desires the most products produced to generate the most capital possible in the shortest amount of time for the longest amount of time. Nowhere does it mention or matter about the quality of the working culture in an organization. If the mainstream practice was to take time to generate performance excellence cultures...

Disregarding the quality of the work culture is demonstration of short-term business strategy. If an organization spends time now to take care of the workers and generate a performance excellence culture, in the long-term, costs are down and profits are up. Patterson, West, Lawthom and Nickell ask and answer:
"Are such progressive people management practices the only route to enhanced business performance? It is a fact of life that some companies are profitable despite making little or no use of such practices…However, where businesses face international competition; where they are committed to excellence and quality standards; where creativity and innovation are essential to moving the business forward -- employee commitment and a positive 'psychological contract' between employer and employee are fundamental to improving performance." (Patterson, West, Lawthom, Nickell, 1997).

Companies such as Google, Inc. And Apple Inc. are examples. Their employees are satisfied more than average, they are productive, and resignations are lower than average. Who wants to quit working for Google? These companies evolve with the times, but still maintain their brand and product identities. Google employees receive "unusual" perks are relaxed, happy, and productive. Google is constantly improving, constantly getting smarter, and constantly discovering new ways to service new and old consumers.