Starbucks Culture: A Double Shot of Group Interaction and ...
RUNNING HEAD: STARBUCKS GROUP CULTURE
Starbucks’ Group Culture: A Double Shot of Marxist Theory and Third Place Phenomenon
Kristen Marie Livingston
Department of Communication
Pittsburg State University
Pittsburg, KS 66762
kristen_livingston@
April 2008
My First Starbucks
I can still smell the aroma permeate through the air of my parents’ house as a child. My mother always drank one cup of Folgers instant coffee with one packet of creamer and two packets of artificial sweetener. I had the urge to try it and finally did; I was told the face I made after consumption was to die for. I love the smell of coffee but apparently had not acquired a taste for it, yet. It was not until high school where a mug could be found permanently mounted in my hand. I still did not like the taste, I actually put quite a bit of sugar in it, but the aroma was always uplifting. If they could bottle the aroma and sell it at Macy’s, I would be the first customer in line to take a sample home with me.
Growing up in a small town had its limits; convenience store coffee tasted like instant convenience store coffee and hot cocoa was not satisfying for a caffeine fiend like me. On a family trip back from Colorado, my mother and I were begged my father to try Starbucks. He nodded and agreed, in a “if I pull over you guys better drink the whole cup” type of agreement. We grinned from ear to ear. I had always thought of Starbucks as an upper class yuppie college hang out for artists and individuals with dark souls. What can I say; I am a small town girl. Upon entering the store, I was intrigued by the décor, multi-colored walls and lighting that was warm but not overpowering. Immediately my attention turned behind the counter, where individuals juggled drinks and operated a plethora of machinery. As we went to order, my mind was overcome by the surplus of coffee, coffee names, and varieties. I thought coffee was, well, coffee. I didn’t know what a tall caramel frappuccino was. Or a macchiato. And a double shot latte. This language was foreign and begged for questioning. However, when I was greeted by a girl adorned with a permanent smile, I smiled back and I began to gain back consciousness. I ended up ordering a coffee, a vanilla hazelnut something or other. My mother ordered the same thing. My typical cup of coffee was 50 cents; Starbucks’ coffee was three dollars. I guess this was the Prada of coffees.
Not too long afterward, we both tried our beverages. Immediately, we went over to the beverage “enhancements” and used about every sugar and creamer packet there was available. As we reentered our vehicle, my father asked me how it was. Fighting my “funny face,” I looked at my mother and said, “Fantastic.” Coffee still tasted like instant Folgers to me. It was then I realized that Starbucks, like many other coffee shops, are not just coffee; they are culture. They are defined by their ambience, aroma, and employees who greet each customer with a “Hello, welcome to Starbucks, how may I help you?”
Caramel Questioning
When I think of coffee, I think of hyperactivity. When I think of Starbucks, I think of a place to help feed and encourage the aforementioned hyperactivity. Sitting in a Starbucks observing the multitude of customers and their interaction with the equally bubbly employees was interesting at best. Starbucks was more than a business but a home away from home. My curiosity reached beyond the counter and into the minds of the employees whose major task was to provide a service to the consumers. However, I felt a hidden meaning and developed an instinct for something more. My first questions that I proposed are why and how Starbucks is organized and why are they popular. It must go beyond the coffee realm open into an off beaten path of normalcy. I knew I didn’t go to Starbucks for their coffee; I went for the atmosphere and to escape from reality every now and then. Therefore, why would people want to work there, for the experience and atmosphere? I had to find out but ultimately ended touching the very tail of what was in reach. My research questions are as follows:
R1: How is Starbucks organized and why do employees work there?
If I was happy with my coffee, what did the employees strive for everyday besides joy in the faces of their customers; in other words, how were they trained to be the ultimate communicators.
R2: What does Starbucks really represent?
Starbucks is a capitalistic culture; they exploit their employees for profit. However, the aforesaid employees “willingly” alienate themselves to provide for their small group culture and the corporate giant itself. I recognize this by the questionable theatrics, upon entering a Starbucks, as displayed by the baristas.
Historical Brew
Starbucks may be world renowned for their international coffee selection. However their culture suggests an inner-working of friendship and connotative meanings. Coffee houses are custom to enjoyable conversations, reading a good Jane Austen novel, sipping a Brazilian brew, all the while listening to the latest Elvis Costello song and the sounds of machines churning. Starbucks, a Seattle based coffee giant, saw an opportunity to expand on the appeal of such “houses” to reach all walks of life.
Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker started the company in 1971 with six regional outlets in the Seattle area. In order to separate themselves from the already cemented idea, investor Howard Schultz searched internationally acclaimed breweries in Milan, Italy. Such coffee houses were described as a “theatrical show”, as the barista, or coffee maker, moved “gracefully from one machine to the next, still acting merrily as can be” (Pendergrast, 1999, p. 368).
Soon, Schultz dreamed of taking Starbucks in a new direction. He started II Giornale in April 1986 - a take on the Italian café with an American twist. The new staff created their own lingo to describe their culture and their coffee. Drinks were ordered by short, tall, and grande, rather than small, medium and large. Individuals merely made up this new “language” and it took off like wildfire (Pendergrast, 1999, p. 369).
In 1990, Starbucks expanded their plant and created an additional roasting space. In 1991, Starbucks becomes the first U.S company, privately operated and owned, to offer a variety of stock options to their employees. In the past decade, Starbucks created a relationship with Barnes and Noble, produced a Frappuccino, started a partnership with Pepsi, and opened starts internationally. Thus, the Starbucks’ empire was advancing towards the top in the corporate realm (Starbucks, n.d.).
Coffee and Theory Talk
According to A. Paul Hare, Starbucks’ employees exhibit characteristics of a team, or a body of individuals working under one individual on particular tasks (Hare, 1992, p. 18). They work together, talk to one another, and perform tasks to help one another. Not only are they co-workers but they exhibit behaviors similar to a sports’ team. For example, there is a shift leader who is responsible for maintaining the status quo behind the counter. Baristas accompany the shift leader and interweave themselves into a culture unknown outside of Starbucks. They learn to accept one another and disregard gender as a potentially negative variable.
As I was researching, Marxism kept creeping in identifying itself as a potential theory. Admittedly, I tried to ignore its presence but it controlled my attention. Karl Marx describes capitalism in terms of exploiting workers, material relations alongside social conditions, and the ideology of a ruling structure. I found this concept comparable to the superstructure system that envelope Starbucks and its culture. At times, I thought it may be a far fetched comparison but found its integration to be well matched. In such a capitalistic structure, workers/employees or the proletariats, have the ability to only sell their labor which in this instance is coffee and culture. Their own identity becomes absorbed by black attire and a green apron. However, at Starbucks, employees willingly become subjects under the strength of the superstructure; alienation is voluntary (Mayo, 1960, p. 92).
A sister theory of Marxism in group communication is corporate communication where the workers act as liaisons between the public and their production (Swanson, 2004, p. 3). For example, Starbucks uses commercials, advertisements, coffee placement in hotels, Target, and Barnes and Noble to demonstrate a need for material income.
Further research suggested that Starbucks resembled a “third place,” not only for customers but for employees as well. Ray Oldenburg (1989) said that “most societies provide an informal place to meet and chat.” We like the idea of work, and relationships at work, but often times we need a place to go to unwind. He suggests that a first place is “one’s home” and a second place is where one works. Third place is a combination of both in or at an informal venue. Starbucks is considered a third place for customers to relax and enjoy a nice toasty brew.
Oddly enough, Oldenburg’s “third place” was contradictive of Marxism. However, I found the application of a “third place” not in the customers but in the employees themselves. I reevaluated the theories and found what is referred to as “Aristotle’s Golden Mean” in an agreement to satisfy both ends of the spectrum.
Two Sugars Please
My methodology was enjoyable; I spent numerous hours living, breathing, drinking coffee, and observing Starbucks’ social interactions. My colleague, Jamie Van Peursem, accompanied me on these intoxicating adventures. Every time I entered a Starbucks, I would get a tall caramel frappuccino. My wallet by the end of our research was nearly drained. Alongside observation hours, I conducted and used several interviews with willing employees for additional studies. Jamie and I spent the majority of our observations at the north end Starbucks in Pittsburg, Kansas. To have a contrast in establishments, we were told that Mount Carmel Hospital also had an operation that served Starbucks coffee. I observed twice there with Jamie but ultimately dismantled my connections because of switched theories and focuses.
Due to my interest in visual rhetoric, I logged hours on the media savvy YouTube searching for training programs and documentaries that may supplement our findings. Also, Starbucks provided us with a plethora of pamphlets promoting Starbucks “going green” and customer satisfaction. All were helpful in formulating theories and conducting additional research.
Coffee Shots
On the afternoon of March 20, 2008, I was on my way to Starbucks, not to get my regular refreshment of a caramel frappuccino but to interview Laura (personal communication, March 20, 2008) a 20 year old barista (which is the Italian word for “coffee expert”). I was nervous and had a preconceived idea of what the conversation was to be like. Upon my arrival at 2:45, I went to sit at the south end of the store, at a bistro table and chair set illuminated by the sunlight. Admittedly, my nerves were probably the aftermath of very little sleep the night before. As I sat down to arrange and test my recording equipment, I peered over at the counter, where two baristas were blending variations of coffee and milk, caramel and coffee, and coffee and coffee. I tried not to notice the aroma that intoxicated the room and chose to remain focused on the task at hand. It was 5 till 3:00 and I could not handle it any longer; I went to order my caffeine fix. The conversation was more than just an order request. The man taking my order was a tall, bald, African American whose white teeth and smile invited conversation. I said hello and asked for my tall caramel frappuccino. Right after I had ordered, I suggested a change from a regular frappuccino to a light version; it had fewer calories but still packed a punch. He replied, “Would you like anything else with that?” while looking at me with pulsating eyes and a smirk as if I had something in my teeth or on my face. I replied with my trademark oversized smile and told him I am rather addicted to this product and needed to watch myself. I had not noticed that my camera was attached to my hand; I did not want to leave it at the table even though I felt safe. My camera was my voice and that of Starbucks, without it would leave me very depressed. After a long pause, he says, in a shrill voice, “OHHHH! You are the interviewer. You’ve been talked about in this neck of the woods.”
I had not realized my celebrity status at Starbucks had caused such a stir. I felt my cheeks turning red and asked the boy if he would be interested in talking to me about his experience as a Starbucks’ barista. He turned and said, “I don’t like coffee.” Puzzled, I asked if he liked the atmosphere. He replied he loved it and would not want to work anywhere else.
Our conversation was interrupted as Laura entered the room a few minutes past the hour. It was hard to recognize her without the green uniform and her hat. She came over, gave me a hug and we sat down. Laura was an international studies student at Pittsburg State University who was shy, but once the communication door was open, became talkative in nature. She previously worked in Joplin at Target’s Starbucks which she humorously calls “Tarbucks.”
One of the reasons she works at Starbucks is because of her huge love of coffee. Intrigued, I told her the boy at the counter claimed a disdain for coffee. I received an unexpected response. Laura emphasized, “Oh, are you talking about Brandon? He lacks good taste.” She looks over at Brandon (personal communication, March 20, 2008) and winks her eye. Intrigued, he comes over and hugs Laura. I tell them they appear to get along well here, as if they are family. Laura says the best part of Starbucks is the people and the culture. Brandon reemphasizes his dislike for coffee once again but recognizes the unique culture at Starbucks. He says, “I don’t like coffee. I like people. Laura loves coffee. We are like ebony and ivory.” I looked at Laura trying to hold my laughter. I knew that he was referring to their beverage preference but it is hard not to notice that he is black and she white. Finally, I ask again, “So, Brandon, how about talking to me about your life as a Starbuck’s barista? I promise coffee will NOT be the topic of discussion.”
Drink up
I was curious about barista training. Laura rolled her eyes but still remained perky with a smile. “What is the training like?” I said. She said it was the most extensive part of Starbucks. They want you to know everyday drink, practice interacting with customers the appropriate way, and KNOW YOUR COFFEE.
Laura described Starbucks University like it was finals week at Pittsburg State University; extensive and stressful. However, I came to realize that “Starbucks University” was distinctive and important; it is what makes the coffee house what it is. By training the customers in this particular manner, they have 25 workers who are accommodating and borderline overeager to serve my caffeine needs. The workers willingly transform into a product; they volunteer themselves for alienation (Ollman, 1971, pg 14). At times, I enjoy the small talk I endure when initially ordering a beverage - however, it is striking that the workers operate similarly while adorning the same engaging smile. They represent the masks of comedy and tragedy; although they wear the comedy mask I have a feeling that tragedy is buried underneath their cheerful dispositions.
Every Starbucks has a shift leader, and those shift leaders are responsible for helping and addressing issues to the baristas. The manager is rarely seen, but does afford her time to help when they are short staffed. According to Marxist theory, the employees not only volunteer for alienation but provide the framework for prescribed atmosphere (Mayo, 1960, p. 94). People gather at Starbucks because they know what to expect every time; the service is part of the corporate establishment. The Starbucks team is what makes Starbucks an appealing environment. Without the University, without the Baristas, without music permeating through the air accompanied by buzzing machinery, there would just be coffee. However, with marketing schemata and an inviting setting, we have Starbucks and not another coffee shop.
As we wrapped up the interview, I told Laura that I envied her; I loved Starbucks and wanted to experience it behind the counter. She told me that I could be a guest employee anytime I wanted. Laura, as nice as she was, still came across like a “step-ford wife,” she was very accommodating and wanted to make sure I felt at ease with her. Often throughout the interview, I had wondered what Laura was like before she started working at Starbucks. In Buddhism, we call it transformation, in Marxism this is a form of forced alienation where employees redesign their identities through training and coffee testing (Ollman, 1971, pg 14). The interview reopened a corridor I had peeked in previously. The employees were highly adaptable. Laura stated when she had first started at Starbucks, she was shy and timid. She recognized the camaraderie among her fellow co-workers. Within a day, she felt as if she had known them forever. They entertain themselves on weekends with Starbucks’ parties. Yes, I will say it again, Starbucks’ parties. Therefore, their inner culture is reflected and can be observed as an innocent bystander; almost like watching a Broadway show without the singing and extreme tap dancing. Starbucks is ultimately an empire where employees work for the customers and the customers live for the employees; it is a culture within a culture. The employees are robots who operate and are “designed” to serve those coffee thirsty customers. However, they do not mind that they have to change their identities and adhere to the Starbucks’ standards. All the while, they adapt to corporate standards and are exposed to subtle forms of alienation (Ollman, 1971, pg 16).
Caffeinated Creatures
Furthermore, from my multitude of observation hours, I saw Laura engage in gossipy conversations. They were forbidden from gossiping at work however they are all 18 years old and older. According to organizational communication practices, groups who engage in brainstorming or group discussion often exchange irrelevant information (Parks & Sanna, 1999, p. 48). For example, on Valentine’s Day, one employee received a special delivery: a bouquet of 12 long stem red roses. I thought, “What a nice surprise at work and I wonder who they are for.” Apparently, the employee, Rhonda, was “off the job” at the time and missed out on the delivery. For the next hour, every employee in Starbucks and several customers became fixated on those flowers. The conversation consisted of, “Who are they for” and “Why didn’t I get any.” They were very much like worker bees in a hive, buzzing around.
In essence, Starbucks was not just the suggested “third place” for customers, but also for the employees. According to Oldenburg (1989), a third place is an alternative environment for individuals to go and relax. The irony is that Starbucks was just as much a haven for employees. Laura, Brandon, and their colleagues went to work with the expectation of working with their friends. They rarely appeared stressed and I could often hear them even in the bathroom talking about school, weekend drinking escapades, and relationships. It was not just a job; it was another familial form.
An example of this “third place” in relation to employee interactions can be justified. On February 14, 2008, my research partner and I were just about to wrap up our hours of observations. Before we put our writing utensils aside, we heard girls behind the counter squealing with immense excitement. They stared through the drive –thru window; I became enticed with curiosity. I rose from my chair and saw a boy, about 11, walking with an older couple. The woman, who looked vaguely familiar, was a Starbucks’ employee who I greeted the first time I had inquired on my study. She entered and started a conversation with the girls behind the counter. The little boy, Dylan, was her newly adopted son. She exclaimed, “I wanted to go to Starbucks after picking up Dylan.” Wow. The first place you take a little boy is to a sugar haven like Starbucks? The “green colored apron” apparently had more meaning to Susan and her fellow employees. This is once again an example of how Starbucks serves as a “third place” for the employees, the Marxist ideal of alienation forces them to check their identities at the door and in return they bond with their co-workers who feel similar in the situation (Ollman, 1971, pg 17).
Susan, who was about a foot taller than me (I am 4’11” and one half!), very slender, and I would describe her aura as motherly. Her husband was equally appealing, salt and peppered headed with a gray “George Nettles Middle School” sweater on. Susan held Dylan close and thanked her employees for covering her for the day. What an enlightening event to watch; Susan’s Starbucks community united to bring happiness to one little boy. Once again, coffee was not involved.
Michelle, store manager, who I rarely saw, approached Susan and hugged her. This was not a “Hi, how are you doing?” hug, but an embrace with more substance and meaning. Michelle was adorned in the official black uniform and green apron. She smiled wide when she addressed Susan; their bond is undeniable and very similar to what I share with my best friend. Starbucks exhibits “third place” traits which helps to define and allude to their integrated inner culture. It was almost like the manager was a mother and her employees are the children who handle the chores in the “house.” All the while, they feel comfortable around one another and are willing to share their personal experiences with one another (Ollman, 1971, pg 20).
Evening Jolt
It is clear to me that Starbucks is here to stay and coffee is no longer coffee. It is also more than a culture on its own; it is a theatrical production that showcases a tight knit group of co-workers, or rather friends. They become friends by force of nature and subject themselves to alienation in the Starbucks’ “capitalistic culture.” Marxism explains that the Starbucks’ workers are a class on their own; they are exploited and formulated to feel, act, and speak on behalf of the corporate paradigm (Mayo, 1960). Ultimately, those influences integrate into their personalities, thus creating a well-oiled machine to market their products. They assume the role of the “Starbucks’ employee” as a character emerges and they lose their identity to that character.
Eventually, Starbucks is considered a product and not just the coffee itself. Their culture is a product of the environment by Howard Schultz and his vision of an Italian bistro. It is also a product of the customers who would rather spend 3.95 for a grande caramel frappuccino than taste Folger’s instant coffee.
By the end of the study, which is still ongoing every time I enter a Starbucks for my caffeine fix, I feel like I could belong to this culture. Laura and Brandon have knighted me an honorary member of their team. They are “Starbucks” and I want to be “Starbucks” too. They are a “third place” and open arms to other employees who seek a “home away from home” (Oldenburg, 1989).
When I enter a Starbucks, I feel like I carry a secret with me when I order. I may not be officially part of their system, but recognize their sophisticated operating circuit. I appreciate the “theatrics” demonstrated behind the counter and the camaraderie shared by the workers. Ahhh. I still need sugar in my coffee but I’ve learned to appreciate where my coffee comes from and the ultimate sacrifices that were made to get it in my hands.
REFERENCES
Hare, A. P. (1992). Groups, Teams, and Social Interaction Theories and Applications. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Mayo, H. B. (1960). Introduction to Marxist Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oldenburg, Ray. (1989). The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon Books.
Oliver, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). A Handbook of Corporate Communication and Strategic Public Relations: Pure and Applied. New York: Routledge.
Ollman, B. (1971). Alienation: Marx''s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge, England: University Press.
Parks, C. D., & Sanna, L. J. (1999). Group Performance and Interaction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pendergrast, M. (1999). Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World. New York: Basic Books.
Starbucks. Retrieved April 2, 2008. Website: .
Swanson, D. R. (2004). Chapter 1 Diversity Programmes in the Contemporary Corporate Environment. In A Handbook of Corporate Communication and Strategic Public Relations: Pure and Applied, Oliver, S. M. (Ed.) (pp. 3-19). New York :Routledge.
Turner, M. E. (Ed.). (2001). Groups at Work Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.