Providing the Apple Experience: Enhancing organizational performance

through employee engagement and empowerment

Raymond Allan G. Vergara
Marketing and Advertising Department
Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business
De La Salle University Manila
raymond.vergara@dlsu.edu.ph

Abstract: Apple’s success lies in its ability provide not just machines and devices, but
the esteemed “Apple Experience.” While many companies have tried to replicate the
Apple ideal, this remains a distinct quality that many customers associate with the
company. Apple is able to do so because it has imbibed the culture of quality within its
organization, a factor that not many others are able to replicate and which caused many
companies to fail in its efforts to implement total quality management. This paper
proposes that Apple’s culture of quality, enhanced by employee empowerment and
involvement, is what allows the company continued success.

Keywords: quality, employee engagement, employee empowerment

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
WHERE COMPANIES FAIL
Total quality management (TQM) is a
management tool that espouses upholding quality at
every stage of the production process. It was
introduced in the United States in the 1980s to
automobile and electronics manufacturers in
response to Japanese competition, after which it
quickly became in vogue with the rest of the world
(Beer, 2003). Today, it remains to be a well-
established field of research in business and
management (Gouranourimi, 2012).
There are, however, several studies that
question the value of incorporating TQM into an
organization, primarily because these studies have
shown that some “60% to 70% of firms feel that
quality improvement efforts have not boosted their
capacity to compete, have not resulted in
implementation of a significant number of practices
associated with TQM, and have not focused TQM
improvement on improved products and services”
(Ernst & Young and American Quality Foundation,
1992 and Kelly, 1992, taken from Beers, 2003).
Beers (2003), however, argues that the failure of
TQM lies not in its theory and method, but persists
instead in implementation. He suggests that the
problem with most TQM rollouts is that it relies on
a top-down approach that does without a feedback
system that allows senior management to
understand the gaps between “TQM rhetoric and the
reality of implementation.” This approach is where
the problem lies because TQM predominantly uses
a bottom-up approach—its ideal implementation
begins with statistical analyses of data gathered
from the production floor, and enhanced by training
of employees and managers in the organization
(Gouranourimi, 2012).
Furthermore, many of these failed
attempts involved organizations that did not go
through a radical overhaul of organizational culture
(Beers, 2003). To succeed with TQM, organizations
must imbibe a culture of quality; everyone in the
organization, no matter the role, must be responsible
for product and service quality (Arnheiter and
Maleyeff, 2005). Every member must buy into the
required culture change and place quality at the
heart of its daily activities. To do so, organizations
must rethink how it is structured—veering away
from the traditional top-down approach of
leadership and control, and towards “cross-
functional approaches to teamwork, and employee
involvement and empowerment”(Gouranourimi,
2012).
Apple, on the other hand, is perhaps one
of the most visible examples of how an entire
organization can successfully fuse the TQM rhetoric
of imbibing a culture of quality without stumbling
with implementation difficulties and challenges.
Apple is able to hold everyone within the company
responsible in providing high quality goods and
services to its loyal customers. This culture of
quality permeates throughout the entire
organization, aggressively championed by
leadership and ardently upheld by a very engaged
and empowered workforce.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
A SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF TQM
Beers (2003) suggests that the failure to
implement a complete and successful TQM program
is the result of deficiencies in the following
fundamental managerial capabilities:
1. “The capacity of senior teams at
the corporate and unit level to develop commitment
to TQM through an effective dialogue about why
the company should adopt TQM and agreement
about what must be done to implement it.
2. “The capacity of the senior team
to follow up their initial commitment with changes
in organizational arrangements (a cross-functional
team-based organization) and behavior (their own
and that of subunit leaders) needed to support their
TQM intentions.
3. “The capacity of the senior team
to create an honest organization-wide conversation
about the effectiveness of TQM implementation
from which they can learn about the quality of their
management and leadership in moving change
along.
4. “The managerial capabilities
above must exist in all subunits of the corporation
for successful TQM transformation to take place.”
Essentially, Beers (2003) contends that
the successful implementation of TQM within any
organization requires two important factors: (1)
commitment from leaders to adhere to a culture of
quality and (2) teamwork through communication
and collaboration. Failed organizations lacked both
these critical success factors. The problem was,
Beers (2003) argues, that many of these
organizations implemented TQM because it was a
fad. Leadership commitment to quality remained
largely low, and management only saw it as another
means to compete, neglecting to understand that
TQM requires a complete cultural overhaul.
Acculturation to quality takes time, which implies
that TQM benefits will take time before it is fully
realized. Many mistakenly believed that following
the programs and processes delineated by TQM
experts and consultants were enough to satisfy the
requirements of the program.
Moreover, organizational and process
changes created pain points to employees down the
line. With many companies, communication flow
remained top-down. The lack of a bottom-up
feedback system impeded the ability of the
organization to pivot towards more feasible and
realistic process changes to allow TQM success.
Employees felt that leadership was far removed
from the realities of process changes, leaving them
uninvolved and disengaged. Ultimately, employees
see no reason to fully commit to a culture of quality.
The lack of commitment to quality manifested by
both leadership and workforce widens the gap
between “TQM rhetoric and the reality of
implementation,” resulting in complete failure.
The successful implementation of TQM
requires fierce commitment of leadership to
promote and advocate a strong culture of quality
within the organization. Furthermore, because
quality becomes the responsibility of each and every
member of the organization, leadership must also
encourage and enhance a culture of communication.
Employees must be encouraged to speak up—to say
what works and what doesn’t. To do so, employees
must be involved, engaged and empowered.
This paper proposes that a culture of
quality, and employee engagement and
empowerment visibly exists within Apple, which
allows it to successfully manifest the ideals and
benefits of TQM. While Apple’s leadership drives
this culture of quality, its engage and empowered
employees ensure that this culture permeates across
the entire organization. Part 1 of the paper defines
employee engagement and empowerment, and
explains how it enhances and improves
organizational performance. Part 2 discusses
Apple’s culture of quality, how it is manifested and
how the company is able to maintain it. Part 3
examines how Apple maintains an engaged and
empowered workforce, and how employees provide
the esteemed Apple Experience.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND
EMPOWERMENT: DEFINITION
AND OUTCOMES
Gouranourimi (2012) argues that the
successful adoption of TQM programs requires
employee involvement and empowerment. Bullock
(n.d.) defines employee involvement as an action
—“the direct participation of staff to help an
organization fulfill its mission and meet its
objectives by applying their own ideas, expertise,
and efforts towards solving problems and making
decisions.” He uses the term involvement
interchangeably with employee engagement, and
further explains that employee involvement leads to,
among other things, employee empowerment.
Macey and Schneider (2008), on the other
hand, provide a multi-faceted definition of
employee engagement. They propose that employee
engagement is (1) a trait, an “inclination or
orientation” towards positive views in life and
conscientiousness in work, (2) a state, which
involves feelings and may convey affective
satisfaction, involvement, commitment or
empowerment, and (3) a behavior, such as taking
initiative, manifesting an organizational citizenship
behavior or being proactive.
Kruse (2012a) defines employee
engagement similar to Macey and Schneider’s
(2008) state engagement—it is “the emotional
commitment an employee has to the organization
and its goals, resulting in the use of discretionary
effort.” Their emotional commitment is what allows
them to care about the organization’s well being,
which spurs them to do what is beneficial to the
organization, even if nobody is watching. An
engaged employee is more likely to go beyond what
is required, such as work on overtime when needed
or go beyond what their usual tasks to satisfy their
customer, even without being told by their
immediate superior. Kruse (2012a) cautions,
however, that a happy and satisfied employee is not
necessarily an engaged employee. An employee
may find happiness in workplace perks, such as free
massages or workplace game rooms, or be satisfied
enough to show up to work without any complaints,
but they may not be motivated enough to go above
and beyond what is asked of them to do. Happy and
satisfied employees may lack the emotional
commitment that engaged employees have.
Employee engagement is essential in any
organization. Engaged employees care about the
organization and its goals, leading them to be more
productive and to give better service, which results
in better business outcomes (Kruse, 2012a and
2012b). Several studies have shown that, indeed,
employee engagement leads to empowerment and
better job performance (Winkler, Konig and
Kleinmann, 2012), improves customer engagement
and loyalty (Bates, 2004), improves customer
experience and satisfaction (Nishii, Lepak and
Schneider, 2008; Trapp, 2013), and, ultimately,
leads to higher sales, profit and shareholder value
(Kruse, 2012a).
Wellins, Bernthal and Phelps (2005)
believe that an engaged workforce is an
organization’s true competitive advantage. They
argue that an engaged workforce is what makes any
organization unique because “it is almost impossible
to copy.” More importantly, it is nearly impossible
to successfully execute corporate initiatives and
achieve organization goals without employee
engagement. Essentially, employee engagement and
empowerment drives the implementation of
corporate strategies needed to achieve the
organization’s goals.
APPLE: CULTURE OF QUALITY
Apple owes its success to its fierce
adherence to a culture of quality. Proof of this
success is Apple’s ranking in the Fortune 500 list—
it earned the 6th position in 2013 from the 17th the
year before (Fortune, 2013). It is also listed as #15
in Forbes’ list of The World’s Biggest Public
Companies (Forbes, n.d.). Apple’s success comes
largely from its ability to disrupt technology—it
changed how people used computers and how
personal computers were designed, it democratized
publishing by allowing anyone to print documents
at home, it reshaped how consumers listened to
music, and it altered the way people used their
mobile phones (Bajarin, 2013).
Quality lies at the core of Apple’s culture.
The company’s commitment to quality, manifested
in its products’ design and the user experience
(Jobs, 2000), is credited for its success (Bajarin,
2011; Vossoughi, 2012). This commitment extends
to everything within the confines of the
organization. Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, didn’t
leave anything to chance; he painstakingly mulled
over everything that affects the “Apple Experience,”
from the fonts that were used in his systems
(McHugh, 2011), to how employees engaged with
customers (Gallo, 2012a and 2012b).
Jobs demanded only the best from
everyone in his organization, including his
suppliers. In the weeks prior to the release of the
first iPhone, Jobs demanded that they release an
iPhone with a glass screen after discovering that the
plastic screens that the prototypes used were prone
to scratches. He assembled his team, spoke to his
suppliers and insisted on everyone carrying out the
task in a matter of six weeks, when the Apple
iPhone was scheduled to be released. (Bodget,
2012)
The only way Apple, or any organization
for that matter, could accomplish this is to have the
appropriate organizational structure to allow it to do
so. When Jobs took back Apple’s helm in the late
1990s after being fired more than a decade earlier,
the company was “months away from declaring
bankruptcy” (Gallo, 2012a). One of the first things
he did was reorganize Apple to make it “more
entrepreneurial and startup-like … yet bring to bear
the tremendous resources” of a large company—it
had to be nimble enough to set trends, but still have
pockets deep enough to complete big projects, such
as the development of the iMac or the iPod (Jobs,
2000). Jobs’ mandate was straightforward: create an
organizational structure that would allow Apple to
concentrate on its core competency—create
beautifully designed products that provide the best
possible user experience. To do so, Jobs (2000)
drastically streamlined Apple’s product lines, took
out the departments that didn’t make sense and
rebuild those that had a lot of potential to contribute
to the company’s stability and growth.
In order to create the “finest possible
consumer computers in which each element plays
together” (Jobs 2000), Apple needed all of its parts
to work together well, too. Jobs was not the only
one responsible for Apple’s organizational success.
Organizational success is not the product of an
individual, it is the result of a concerted effort from
each and every member of the organization.
In the late 1990s, Jobs formulated a retail
concept based on the philosophy of providing
solutions, rather than merely selling stuff (Gallo,
2012a; Kane & Sherr, 2011). Jobs understood that
to provide the user experience he envisioned, he had
to revolutionize the way Apple products were sold.
This retail concept extends the user experience—the
Apple Experience does not begin when one uses the
product, it begins before one even makes the
purchase itself. He understood that he wasn’t merely
selling a computer—he was selling a lifestyle.
The Apple Store completes Jobs’ vision of
the Apple Experience. This experience can be
summed up by two words: enriching lives (Gallo,
2012a and 2012c). Through product design and
innovation, Jobs has successfully differentiated his
computers from the rest: an iPhone wasn’t just a
phone, a MacBook Air wasn’t just a laptop and an
iPad wasn’t just a tablet. His products make life a
little better, a little more exciting for his customers.
This is why the Apple brand has a cult-like
following and very loyal customer base (Osborne,
2012).
Jobs subsequently hired Ron Johnson to
head Apple’s retail division in 2000 and developed
a retail store concept that was unlike any computer
store at that time. Johnson realized early on that
beyond Apple’s product design, retail stores needed
employees that are passionate and personable
(Gallo, 2012c). It would be difficult to engage
Apple’s loyal customers if their retail store
employees weren’t themselves passionate and
enthusiastic about the brand. The concept was
initially panned by retail analysts, but Jobs and
Johnson soon proved the critics wrong. Apple is
now one of America’s most profitable retailer
(Gallo, 2012a; Hormby, 2008). Apple Stores are
among the most visited, receiving about 20,000
visitors daily for the average Apple Store. To this
day, many other retailers have since tried adopting
some variation of Apple’s retail strategies (Gallo,
2012a and 2012b).
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND
EMPOWERMENT DRIVES THE
APPLE EXPERIENCE
How engaged are Apple’s employees? Ng
(2011) believes that Apple is possibly “the greatest,
most visible example of a fully engaged company.”
Apple employees are happy to show up for work,
primarily because they believe that they are doing
the kind of work that “matters and has an impact on
the world” (Fiegerman, 2012). Employees are some
of Apple’s biggest fans (Ng, 2011). Apple Store
employees have been known to be extremely
helpful, assisting customers in fixing and replacing
parts of damaged iPads and iPhones despite having
expired warranties (Gallo, 2012c) to even helping
foil a kidnapping attempt (Agreda, 2012).
Customers go in to Apple Stores with a “sense of
excitement,” largely because they know that Apple
employees are highly engaging, very helpful and
understand exceptionally well how to provide a
wonderful customer experience (Ng, 2011).
How does one nurture an engaged and
empowered workforce? Wellins et al (2005) believe
that employee engagement is all about fit—it is
about finding the right person that fits the role and
the organization. The problem with most companies
is that they hire for skill, ignoring other important
values, such as motivation and principles, when
filling in a role. When they finally realize that their
hires aren’t engaged, many companies waste their
time and effort in rectifying the situation, often with
disappointing results.
The key to having an engaged workforce
is to hire one. The most engaged companies are
those who are able to hire people with skills and
values that match the role and the organization. In
Apple, employees are hired based on attitude, not
aptitude (Gallo, 2012c). Apple recognizes that while
technical ability can be developed and enhanced,
they would be hard pressed to teach people how to
be more personable, more engaging or more
passionate about what they do.
Apple is one of the toughest organizations
to get into (Allen, n.d. and Frommer, 2009). One
reason is because many want to be part of the
company. In 2009, 10,000 people submitted
applications to work for a store in New York City,
but only 2% of applicants, or 200 people, were
accepted (Buchanan, 2009). Johnson claims that
Apple receives roughly 200 applications for every
open retail position (Allen, n.d.). Another reason
why it is difficult to land a job in Apple is because
at 20% turnover rate, it has one of the industry’s
lowest–very few want to leave (Allen, n.d.).
Lastly, it is tough to get a job in Apple
because of a rigorous application and interview
process (Allen, n.d.; Gallo, 2012c; Heine, 2011).
Apple hires based on a “type,” employees aren’t
hired based on their technical knowledge or skill
(Allen, n.d. and Heine, 2011). A hiring manager in
Apple shared that he would rather hire somebody
who may know very little about Apple computers
but knows how teach, than somebody who is
technically skilled and smart but can’t teach (Gallo,
2012c). Apple employees are hired for their
personalities—they are confident, personable and
passionate. They must know how to deal with
Apple’s loyal customers, no matter how angry or
agitated they are (Kamer, 2013). Those who don’t
fit the mold are not offered a job.
Those lucky enough to receive retail job
offers are subjected to a rigorous 14-day boot camp
meant to train them on how to create a uniquely
Apple experience (Biddle, 2012). From the very
beginning, retail employees, also known as Apple
Geniuses, are made to understand that their job is
primarily to build relationships and to do what is
right for their customers. They do not work on
commission and do not need to fulfill a sales quota;
on the contrary, their mandate is “to leave customers
feeling special and to enrich their lives” (Gallo,
2012c).
Apple employees are no pushovers. The
company has institutionalized a feedback system
that allows everyone in the organization to speak
their mind and give their opinion when it is needed.
Known as “fearless feedback,” Allen (through
Gallo, 2012c) describes it as constructive feedback
that any Apple employee can give to anyone at any
level. Feedback is almost always given immediately
in the retail floor, usually after an employee engages
an employee. Fearless feedback aims to improve the
experience between the customers and the staff.
Jobs valued his employees’ opinions, and
expected them to speak up and explain their position
(Gallo, 2012c). In doing so, Jobs empowered
everyone in the organization. Apple employees are
expected to participate and voice out their opinion
(Gallo, 2012a, 2012b; Mulligan, 2013; Sinsky,
2011). Tim Cook, Apple’s current CEO, describes
Jobs as a demanding boss who “took contrary
positions to create more discussion, because it may
lead to a better result” (Gallo, 2012c). Jobs
recognized the importance of fearlessness and
honesty, and made it very clear that he wanted a
culture of transparency (Gallo, 2012c). This in turn
built trust within the organization and empowered
everyone to do what is right and beneficial to
Apple’s customers.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Apple hires based on passion and
fearlessness over proficiency and knowledge. Apple
recognized that employees can be technically
trained, but they cannot teach passion or enthusiasm
(Gallo, 2012a and 2012b). These characteristics are
especially sought in potential employees for its
retail stores. Apple believes that a team of highly
engaged and empowered employees is capable of
providing exceptional customer service crucial to
the Apple Experience (Gallo, 2012b).
Beer (2003) argued that the successful
implementation of the management of total quality
within an organization requires “a quality of
management: managerial values, attitudes, skills and
behavior” and employees being responsible for
continuous improvement, possible only if they are
engaged and empowered. He recognized that the
failure of companies to thrive and succeed with
TQM was because of their lack of “cross-functional
approach to teamwork, and employee involvement
and empowerment.” This argument illustrates
exactly why Apply succeeds in what it does.
Apple recognizes the crucial role that
employees have in maintaining and enhancing a
culture of quality within the organization. This is
why the company puts a lot of value on employee
engagement and empowerment. They have
successfully institutionalized an effective feedback
system that many other companies lacked and which
is crucial in the efficient and effective
implementation of TQM principles.
Employee engagement and empowerment
are the reasons behind Apple’s success. Empowered
employees who understand their roles and who are
very resourceful in coming up with solutions allow
management to focus on driving the business—and
for Apple, this means creating the next big
technologically disruptive project. This brings about
an ideal environment where everyone concentrates
on what they do best, allowing them to produce
quality work.
Apple illustrates how a company can
successfully sustain the management of total quality
within an organization through the assimilation of a
culture of quality. While direction comes from
leadership, it is sustained by engaging and
empowering the people down the line.
REFERENCES
Agreda, V. (2012, August 12). Apple Store
employee doesn’t have to be a genius to
call the cops, rescues kidnap victim. The
Next Web Blog. Retrieved from
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/07/a
lert-apple-store-employee-foils-
kidnapping/#!wsTWR
Allen, G. (n.d.). Hiring advice for Apple Stores. ifo
Apple Store. Retrieved from
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/hiring-
advice-for-apple-stores/
Arnheiter, E. D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). The
integration of lean management and Six
Sigma. The TQM Magazine, 17(1), 5-18.
Bajarin, T. (2013, February 11). Has Apple Finished
Disrupting Markets? Time.com. Retrieved
from
http://techland.time.com/2013/02/11/has-
apple-finished-disrupting-markets/
Bajarin, B. (2011, July 1). Why Competing with
Apple Is So Difficult. Time. Retrieved
from
http://techland.time.com/2011/07/01/why-
competing-with-apple-is-so-difficult/
Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HR magazine,
49(2), 44-51. Retrieved from
http://www.shrm.org/publications/hrmaga
zine/editorialcontent/pages/0204covstory.
aspx
Beer, M. (2003). Why total quality management
programs do not persist: the role of
management quality and implications for
leading a TQM transformation*. Decision
Sciences, 34(4), 623-642. Retrieved from
http://www.iem.unifei.edu.br/turrioni/Pos
Graduacao/PQM07/TQM_aula_2_e_3/W
hy%20Total%20Quality%20Management
%20Programs%20Do%20Not
%20Persist.pdf
Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (2006).
Service clues and customer assessment of
the service experience: lessons from
marketing. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(2), 43-57.
Biddle, S. (2012, August 20). How to be a Genius:
This is Apple’s secret employee training
manual. Gizmondo. Retrieved from
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/08/how
-to-be-a-genius-this-is-apples-secret-
employee-training-manual/
Blodget, H. (2012, January 22). Steve Jobs freaked
out a month before first iPhone was
released and demanded a new screen.
Business Insider. Retrieved from
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-
01-22/tech/30652107_1_foxconn-
iphones-apple-executives
Buchanan, M. (2009, November 12). All the Apple
Store data you could possibly want to
read. Gizmondo.com. Retrieved from
http://gizmodo.com/5403128/all-the-
apple-store-data-you-could-possibly-
want-to-read
Bullock, R. (n.d.). What is employee involvement?
Retrieved from
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/pod/
leaders/orgdev/alliance/articles/Employee
Involvement-ScontrinoPowell.pdf
Ernst & Young and American Quality Foundation.
(1992). The international quality study:
The definitive study of the best
international quality management
practices: Top-line findings. Cleveland,
OH.
Fiegerman, S. (2012, June 18). Why working at
Apple is a dream job.
BusinessInsider.com. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-
what-employees-really-love-about-
working-for-apple-2012-6?op=1
Forbes (n.d.). Global 2000: The World’s Biggest
Public Companies. Forbes.com. Retrieved
from
http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/
Fortune (2013). Fortune 500. CNN Money.
Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/f
ortune500/
Frommer, D. (2009, November 12). It’s harder to
get a job at the Apple Store than it is to
get into Harvard. BusinessInsider.com.
Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/its-
harder-to-get-a-job-at-the-apple-store-
than-it-is-to-get-into-harvard-2009-11
Gallo, C. (2012a, August 21). 7 Courageous Ways
Apple Became America’s Most Valuable
Company. Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo
/2012/08/21/7-courageous-ways-apple-
became-americas-most-valuable-
company/
Gallo, C. (2012b, August 30). Apple’s Secret
Employee Training Manual Reinvents
Customer Service in Seven Ways.
Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carminegallo
/2012/08/30/apples-secret-employee-
training-manual-reinvents-customer-
service-in-seven-ways/
Gallo, C. (2012c). The Apple experience: Secrets to
building insanely great customer loyalty.
McGraw Hill Professional.
Gouranourimi, F. (2012). Total Quality
Management, Business Process
Reengineering & Integrating Them for
Organizations’ Improvement. American
Journal of Scientific Research. 2012(46),
47-59. Retrieved from
http://www.eurojournals.com/AJSR_46_0
6.pdf
Heathcote, E. (2013, November 22). Jony Ive: The
genius behind Apple’s greatest products,
by Leander Kahney. Financial Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/a9efefa2-
5071-11e3-befe-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tZ1LbAwJ
Heine, B. (2011, April 6). Want to get a job at the
Apple Store? Here’s what the interview
process looks like. Cult of Mac. Retrieved
from http://gizmodo.com/5403128/all-the-
apple-store-data-you-could-possibly-
want-to-read
Hormby, T. (2008, May 19). The roots of Apple’s
retail stores. Retrieved from
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/08th/roots-
of-the-apple-store.html
Jobs, S. (2000). Apple’s one-dollar-a-year man.
CNN Money. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/f
ortune_archive/2000/01/24/272277/
Kamer, F. (2013, July 29). Angry Apple Store lady,
explained: The woman who took the Vine
talks. Complex Tech. Retrieved from
http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/07/an
gry-apple-store-lady-explained-porscha-
coleman
Kane, Y.I. and Sherr, I. (2011, June 15). Secrets
From Apple’s Genius Bar: Full Loyalty,
No Negativity. The Wall Street Journal.
Retrieved from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424
052702304563104576364071955678908.
html
Kelly, K. (1992). Quality: Small and midsize
companies seize the challenge—not a
moment too soon. Business Week, 30, 66-
99.
Kruse, K. (2012a, June 22). What is employee
engagement. Forbes.com.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2
012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-
and-why/
Kruse, K. (2012b, September 4). Why employee
engagement? (These 28 research studies
prove the benefits). Forbes.com.
Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2
012/09/04/why-employee-engagement/
Kruse, K. (2014, January 7). Employee engagement:
The wonder drug for customer
satisfaction. Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2
014/01/07/employee-engagement-the-
wonder-drug-for-customer-satisfaction/
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The
meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
1(1), 3-30.
McHugh, M. (2011, October 7). Steve Jobs: The
godfather of fonts as we know them.
Digital Trends. Retrieved from:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/s
teve-jobs-the-godfather-of-fonts-as-we-
know-them/
Mulligan, M. (2013, April 26). Michael Lopp on
Apple, managing humans and disruptive
technology. Knight Lab. Retrieved from
http://knightlab.northwestern.edu/2013/04
/26/michael-lopp-on-apple-managing-
humans-and-disruptive-technology/
Ng, W. (2011, November 14). Steve Jobs’ Legacy:
360 Degree Engagement.
IncentiveMag.com. Retrieved from
http://www.incentivemag.com/Incentive-
Programs/Engagement/Articles/Steve-
Jobs--Legacy--360-Degree-Engagement/
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. (2008).
Employee attributions of the “why” of HR
practices: Their effects on employee
attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 61(3),
503-545. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/v
iewcontent.cgi?
article=1482&context=cahrswp
Osborne, C. (2012, October 25). Anthropologist
'confirms' Apple is a religion. ZDNet.
Retrieved from
http://www.zdnet.com/anthropologist-
confirms-apple-is-a-religion-7000006377/
Sinsky, R. (2011, August 25). Why Apple
employees avoid getting in the elevator
with Steve Jobs. Venture Beat. Retrieved
from
 http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/25/michae
l-dhuey-apple-engineer/

Trapp, R. (2013, December 19). Poor customer

service explained by lack of employee
engagement. Forbes.com. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogertrapp/20
13/12/19/poor-customer-service-
explained-by-lack-of-employee-
engagement/

Vossoughi, S. (2012, April 25). User experience:

The reason Apple towers over Sony.
Gizmondo.com. Retrieved from
http://gizmodo.com/5905192/user-
experience-the-reason-apple-towers-over-
sony

Wellins, R. S., Bernthal, P., & Phelps, M. (2005).

Employee engagement: The key to
realizing competitive advantage.
Development Dimensions International,
1-30.

Winkler, S., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2012).

New insights into an old debate:
Investigating the temporal sequence of
commitment and performance at the
business unit level. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 85(3), 503-52