Deconstructing Starbucks – The Four Frames of Management



Deconstructing Starbucks – The Four Frames of ManagementIS 550 – Management of Information OrganizationsAmanda Nichols November 29, 2011I work at a local Starbucks as a barista. I have been employed by Starbucks for just over a year. The following events occurred over a two week period. Background on Scheduling Policy and Procedure At our store, it is accepted policy that the weekly schedule is posted the Monday preceding the week. As such, there are two weeks posted in the store at a time. For example, on Monday, September 12, the schedules for both the week of the 12th, and the week of the 19th would be posted in the store. The schedule remains posted until the week is finished. In addition to the schedule posted on the wall of the store, our store also utilizes a shift resource binder, which contains a daily schedule for every day of the week (called a daily coverage report, or DCR), as well as our weekly communication, tracking, and goals. To record requested days off, the store uses a separate binder containing blank calendars where partners can record their requested days off as far in advance as they would like. The scheduling policy at Starbucks works around availability forms that each partner files individually and renews periodically. The availability forms contain a partner’s available hours for each day of the week, the total number of hours that a partner is available each day, the preferred shift for each day, and the total number of hours preferred for each day. These availability forms are supposed to function as a scheduling manager’s tool when making the schedule and Starbucks prides itself on how well its managers work with any schedule request. Typically, the schedule remains as posted, unless a partner has an urgent scheduling need, in which case the manager and the partner are both responsible for attempting to find someone to cover a shift. The only other exception is when our labor percentage (this has to do with the amount of business our store has on a daily basis in combination with the amount of hours being worked by partners daily) exceeds 20 hours for the week. We have been awarded 20 hours by our district manager (previously, our allowed labor was zero). When the labor percentage exceeds the allowed labor, then the shift manager or the store manager may make cuts to shifts. Usually shifts that require a lunch (those shifts exceeding 6 hours and 15 minutes) are cut first. When cuts are made, these are recorded on the DCR, and NOT on the master schedule that remains posted on the wall. Partners are not asked permission to cut shifts, and they are not notified of cuts by phone, e-mail, or text. Shift managers have been instructed that the DCR is the authority regarding the schedule in the event that the DCR and the master schedule do not match.Narrative of EventDuring the week in question, the coverage scheduled exceeded our allowed labor percentage by a great amount early in the week. In order to ensure that the store had enough coverage for the weekend (our busiest time), the store manager felt the need to cut labor for the rest of the week. She made cuts, and (as per the norm), recorded them on the DCR and not on the master schedule. The particular week in question, there was an extraordinary amount of cuts that needed to be made, and the majority of the partners at our store were affected by these shift cuts. Throughout the course of the week, several of the partners arrived early for their shifts, to find that they had been cut (either at the beginning or the end of shifts) anywhere from 1-3 hours. As this trend increased, the feeling in the store grew more and more tense. This tension was due primarily to repeated cuts for several partners and no notifications. Towards the end of the week, after repeated confrontations from partners and after working in a store where the atmosphere was stiff and tense, the store manager had an outburst, and declared in writing that it was not the scheduling manager’s responsibility to notify partners of schedule changes. Verbally, the manager lashed out at the partner who had brought forward the most recent complaint regarding the schedule, and told this partner that it was not her responsibility to notify individual partners of their schedule changes. She added that we should be coming into the store every day, no matter what our schedule, and checking the DCR to verify our hours. The partner in question was extremely disgruntled (she was a part-time worker and in school, therefore, she were not in and around the store every day), like the rest of the store employees. There was the lingering feeling that although we were all promised that the schedule would reflect our individual needs, we really had no control. We would ultimately have to spend our extra time running back and forth to the store in order to make sure that we were up-to-date on the current standing changes to the schedule. The following week, my schedule was changed on Monday morning. I was given an extra hour on both Tuesday and Wednesday, according to the master schedule. These times had been written into the master schedule, and were not on the original printout, which indicated to me that these changes had not been recorded in the computer and would not be on the DCR printouts. On Tuesday, the shift manager informed me that my shift was over according to the time listed on the DCR. When I asked her about the time listed on the master schedule, she repeated to me the store policy regarding conflicts between the DCR and the master schedule and sent me home. The next day, the same situation occurred, except the store manager was present. When the shift manager attempted to send me home, the store manager raised questions and consulted both the DCR and the master schedule. After consulting, she informed me and my shift manager that the master schedule was correct and not the DCR. When she retreated to the office to do some administrative work, the shift manager expressed her displeasure at being told one policy and then being scolded for not following something completely outside of policy. The store manager offered no explanation as to why the normal policy was not followed. Ultimately, these two weeks in the store resulted in a visit from the district manager. He held round table talks with each of the partners, some in groups and some individually. The district manager then held a joint conference call with the store manager and the regional manager regarding scheduling. The contents of these calls were unknown to partners, but the tense feeling in the store has not dissipated. The Structural FrameThe Six Assumptions of the Structural FrameIn Reframing Organizations, Bolman and Deal identify six assumptions that help to make up the structural frame. These assumptions adhere with the idea that the structural frame seeks to “put people in the right roles and relationships” in order to “accommodate both collective goals and individual differences” (Bolman and Deal 47) These six assumptions are also identifiable within the Starbucks Corporation, and help to break down the structure of the individual store. Starbucks presents to its partners goals and objectives in the form of a mission statement, “inspiring and nurturing the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time” (Starbucks Coffee Company 1.3). This mission statement also includes other supporting statements that comment on the coffee, partners, customers, stores, neighborhoods, and shareholders that each store encounters, and remarks on how each fits into the organization. This document is made available to each partner during his/her training, and is also accessible online via the Store Portal. Starbucks works with Bolman and Deal’s assumption that organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives here, and in theory, these measures are in place to ensure that goals are met.Starbucks does not utilize any form of specialization at the basic barista level. At the basic training level, a Starbucks employee is a barista. Each employee must be certified at this level in order to continue in employment. After an employee is certified, the company deems that training is completed. The majority of employees remain at this level for the duration of their career at Starbucks. However, some specialization is available beyond the barista 101 level. A barista can choose to pursue other additional job certifications after reaching the 101 level. These certifications include the tea passport certification and the coffee passport certification (which are both simple in nature and easily achieved, even within the first few months of employment). Harder and more in-depth certifications include the coffee master certification, which is also called Barista 201. This training program is fairly rigorous in terms of the information a partner must intake and the new skills they are required to demonstrate after training is complete. Although these certifications are available to partners to complete, there is no pay change that reflects them once complete. The certifications also do not change the positions a partner is qualified to work. Labor is divided based on the position that a barista is assigned at the beginning of his/her shift. The positions include front cashier, brewer, front espresso bar, cold bar, drive-thru espresso bar, drive-thru expeditor, and drive-thru register. Each of these positions has its own set of expectations and responsibilities. These are explained and taught to each barista during his/her training, and there are also lists posted at each position to function as job aides. Certifications and proper partner deployment help Starbucks to run their stores more efficiently, and ultimately enhance the performance of each individual partner. These components are also part of Bolman and Deal’s basic assumptions of the structural frame.Within my particular store, the main form of coordination is the shift communication binder. This is a collection of daily coverage reports (DCR’s), daily tracking, and daily goal documents. The binder is, in theory, accessible by all baristas and is typically found in a central location. The binder attempts to ensure that each barista is aware of his/her shift length, start and end times, positioning (also known as deployment), daily goals, and daily tasks. The binder aids in matching the tasks necessary to keep the store running with the time that each partner is available. If all baristas use the binder for communication, then I believe it qualifies as a suitable form of communication. Like Bolman and Deal indicate, use of this coordinating measure will help ensure that partner efforts are not in vain. They are coordinated with that of the organization through the use of the communication binder, and so the meshed efforts of all partners contribute to the operations running smoothly and efficiently.Starbucks builds into its corporation a type of formatted rationality at all levels. For example, in my personal case, there are policies and measures used by both the district and corporation that indicate how scheduling is supposed to work in addition to procedures adopted by individual stores. These policies and measures include the shift binder (mentioned earlier, which includes all the information a barista needs to execute his/her shift), the policy regarding schedule posting (one week in advance), and calling out (finding another partner to cover a potentially missed shift). If used correctly, these policies and measures attempt to ensure that the store runs efficiently and rationally, at least from an internal operations standpoint. Store operations as a whole also depend on external factors as well, which are often outside the influence of such scheduling manipulators. These measures and policies function as a precedenting force – with the example and structure already in place for the administration and the partners to follow, there is little room for deviation based around personal agendas. This is also in accordance with Bolman and Deal’s assumptions of the structural frame 0 the structures in place here create a formatted rationality that allows the organization to run smoothly from a structural standpoint. Each store in the Starbucks Corporation is allowed a set amount of partners and shift managers (that can be working a set amount of hours at one time) that is based on its sales volume. This volume also dictates the store goals; these are set by district and regional managers regularly throughout each quarter. The corporation is in charge of technology updates, and does this according to standards that are not in the hands of the store. The store is equipped by the corporation structurally to take care of the operational components that most directly affect its business – scheduling, ordering, and other processes that are directly related to daily functions. In this regard, the store functions very well, and the structures in place fit its current situation. This, according to Bolman and Deal, is another one of the basic assumptions of the structural frame. The conflict that I am currently involved in at Starbucks, and examining as a case study, is the problem of scheduling conflicts and tensions, which are present as a result of overlapping policies and the communication (or lack of communication) regarding these policies. Overlapping policies (like shift managers being instructed to consult two different resources in order to run a shift) and lack of communication (in this particular case, about which printed schedule is correct) are both structural deficiencies, that, if we continue to observe the Bolman and Deal model, should be reconstructed in order to resolve.Differentiation and IntegrationThe division of labor at Starbucks has little specialization. However, there are individualized tasks that accompany each station that a barista may be expected to work. There are also specific prescriptions as to how a barista is to carry out a job, from making a beverage to cleaning equipment. These prescriptions function to “help ensure predictability, uniformity, and reliability” (Bolman and Deal 52). Job requirements differentiate from position to position, but are consistent from week-to-week (cleaning duties, for example, rotate on a weekly basis). This consistency, coupled with the aforementioned prescriptions make up the structural differentiation that Bolman and Deal indicate is so central to the structural frame. From the basic unit, a Starbucks store is built in this manner: individual partner, a group of partners (commonly referred to as a shift), the shift is led by a shift manager; both groups are led by the store manager, who spearheads all store operations. Each group has the skills to function individually, but their efforts must be coordinated in order for goals to mesh. The coordination (or integration) occurs through organizing the partners and shift managers based on the time worked. A typical operational day is divided into three parts: morning, mid-, and evening. In addition to the expectations and responsibilities that each barista assumes, each shift as a whole also has day-part relevant cleaning and organizational tasks. These tasks are found in the duty roster, and are also posted on the shift bulletin board. Ultimate integration of all the individual units (partners and shifts) is achieved through scheduling. The scheduling manager has access to the availability of all the partners and compiles a schedule that reflects the number of people needed to run the store efficiently to accomplish the goals of our individual store and the goals of the company as a whole. Although the division of labor at Starbucks is successful, the integration and meshing of those diverse efforts falls flat. The store encounters what Bolman and Deal call suboptimization. As a direct result of the strong focus on labor percentage (sales compared to money being paid out to partners working), scheduling snafus occur and overlapping policies conflict with the number of people minimally needed to run a shift and the number of people comfortably needed to run a shift. The shift managers are focused on keeping our percentage low, and this is creating these structural deficiencies that Bolman and Deal reference: shift managers send partners home without concern for how business may pick up later on in the shift. When a shift has a restricted number of partners, it has been my personal experience that it becomes harder to achieve the goals the company has charged me with as an employee. The final picture that a customer sees from across the counter is of a disorganized store with a constantly changing schedule. The atmosphere is one of distrust of the management, dissatisfaction with the structural function of the store, and uncertainty about the amount of hours I will receive and quality of work I will be able to produce. Lateral and Vertical CoordinationBolman and Deal also write and explain that the two primary ways that successful organizations can “coordinate individual and group efforts and to link local initiatives with corporation wide goals”. (Bolman and Deal 54). The writers call this vertical and lateral coordination. Starbucks is an example of vertical coordination, which occurs when those at the top of the pyramid coordinate with those below them “through authority, rules and policies, and planning and control systems” (Bolman and Deal 54). The store manager is the authority that is “officially charged” with the overall decision making, evaluation, and sanctioning of awards and promotions. With respect to planning and control systems, the store manager and the assistant store manager are the only two in the store with the authorization to access our forecasting for both sales and labor for our individual store. From a company-wide standpoint, the initiatives for performance control come from even further up, and are communicated every week. The place where Starbucks deviates from vertical coordination is on the rules and policies side. Rather than create consistent and predictable behavior, the rules and policies regarding scheduling overlap just enough to cause partner confusion and tension in the workplace. For example, the Daily Coverage Report (DCR) is supposed to be the authority on correct scheduling, until a situation occurs in which schedule changes were not recorded in the computer. The shift manager relying on the DCR to provide correct information can no longer position partners as accurately as possible, nor can he/she communicate to partners the length of their shifts correctly. Processes slow down, the margin for error increases, and there is an imminent possibility of over and/or understaffing. Lateral coordination should, in theory, occur across the board regarding promotions, standard operating procedures, and other store functions. However, with the exception of the communications binder (which is updated weekly, but only with material that comes from corporate), there is no lateral coordination. Our store schedules only one staff meeting per year, right before our holiday season begins. The lack of lateral coordination means that the communication of rules and policies (given to store management by upper management in vertical coordination) does not occur, nor are they understood at the lateral level. My experience with this type of deficiency is extensive, and I have seen the resulting confusion cripple store operations. Deficiencies According to the Structural FrameAccording to the basics of the structural frame, the problems I have encountered at Starbucks lies in faulty vertical coordination. There are policies and rules in place that are designed to make the flow of operations run smoother, but, from the viewpoint of a partner, there is a severe under-articulation and under-use of these policies. They are not written down or readily accessilbe; they are contained in the heads of the store manager and the assistant store manager and interpreted at free will when the situation calls for it. The partners come away from a scheduling snafu confused by how the process appears to work. Without a clear understanding of what the policies actually are, there can be no successful lateral coordination between shift managers and partners. To me, a solution seems simple: a written store policy that clearly outlines the accepted procedure for scheduling, schedule changes, and requested days off. This policy should be circulated within the store, posted in an area accessible to all partners, and should function as the reigning authority in issues of this nature. Reflection on the Structural FrameOne of the first things that examining the structural frame helped me to realize was all the components involved in the structure of Starbucks. Before, I was stuck on how the processes should work, and the measures in place to assure that they are carried out properly. I was also confused as to why these checks did not seem to work, with special respect to the issue in my personal case. Now, however, rather than only focusing on the negatives, I can now see where the structures work in a positive manner. One example would be the prescriptions concerning job duties and expectations. Having these position aides posted and handy means that I always know what the expectations are for me in a given position. Also looking back, I wish that there was more potential for job specialization. Although there are the extra certifications available, there is no motivation for partners to work towards them – they create no stratification, and there is no pay difference. Perhaps placing more weight on these would create specialization that might benefit the store in some way. Human Resource FrameStarbucks exists, according their mission statement, “to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time” (Starbucks Coffee Company, 1.3). The organization itself, the partners, the management, the beverages – all exist in order to create moments that inspire our customers to pull more from life. Although the customer base provides the company with the monetary means to continue to function, the company places more emphasis on serving the customers. One of the most distinguishing features about the Starbucks business ethic, in my opinion, is its concept of legendary customer service. To the partners, this means providing the customer with whatever products and services are necessary in order for their visit to be extraordinary. For me, the response from a customer who receives this type of customer service is a motivator to continue serving in this manner. The fundamental unit at Starbucks is the partner, and the combination of partners into shifts allows the store to function as designed. The partners supply the ideas, energy, and talent that Bolman and Deal writer are necessary for the organization to survive. In exchange for this contribution to the organization, the partners are supplied with careers, salaries, and opportunities for advancement. The give and take of this relationship between Starbucks and its partners can be looked at in terms of fit. The results of this exchange between the partners and Starbucks should, theoretically, provide the partners with satisfying work and the organization with the energy needed to be successful. I enjoy my work with the customers are Starbucks; the philosophy we as partners are taught emphasizes connection and relationship building. My customers are like an extended family, and involved in the events in my life, and I in theirs. The majority of the time, the partners and the management relate to each other much in the same way. The organization uses “round table talks” (one-on-one conversations between partners and management) in order to foster these connections. The management also has an open-door policy, and makes themselves extremely available to the partners. We are encouraged to bring our complaints, suggestions, and concerns to the management team with the understanding that we will be viewed without bias or judgment. FitThe relationship between the organization and its people also has a dynamic that Bolman and Deal refer to as fit, and this is perhaps one of the more interesting parts of the human resources frame. For me, useful work at Starbucks means accomplishing my assigned tasks to the best of my abilities while delivering the legendary customer service that the company prides itself on. Typically, the organization provides me with the resources I need to achieve these goals – team members, the necessary equipment, and clear direction. However, there have been exceptions to this. When scaling back on labor takes precedence over customer service, the focus of the organization shifts from its relationship with its employees to its relationship with profits. The balance shifts: the management begins removing resources, like team members, and my ability to be useful (accomplish the goals stated previously) suffers. The second piece of the fit puzzle is how well employees are able to express their skills and sense of self to and through the organization. This balance is also an exchange: the organization expresses to the partners their goals, and the partners attempt to achieve these goals through their skill set. One of the major goals of Starbucks is to deliver their legendary customer service, but the execution is left up to the partner. For me, expressing myself through the company means finding points of commonality and conversation with customers in order to connect with them on a daily basis. I’m also able to express myself to the company by utilizing the management’s open door policy and taking advantage of the periodic round table talks. I think that both the customer exchange and the exchange with the management provide the partners with the fit needed for this particular piece. The third piece includes how well a job fits financial and lifestyle needs. For me, I am dependent financially on Starbucks to pay certain bills, like my car payment. One of the incentives for me to move to Starbucks from my previous job was the wage difference. They typically start new partners at better than minimum wage (for me, it was ten cents higher than my previous position, where I had been for six years). They also review partner performance on a six month rotation. The results of these reviews are evaluated by the management team and reviewed with the partners. After the review is delivered, the results are translated into a percentage scale, and the partner receives anywhere from 1-3% raise. From a lifestyle standpoint, my experience with Starbucks was always positive – the scheduling manager worked with my school schedule and also helped me work around other scheduling needs that I had (traveling to see my parents, etc.). However, there were occasions where financial needs were challenged by the organization. In this case, the cut hours, which reduced the total amount of hours I worked in a pay period. This obviously resulted in a lower paycheck. I requested the maximum amount of hours that I needed to support my financial obligations. Even despite the competitive wage and regular pay increases, the decreasing number of hours I was being scheduled to work began to jeopardize my financial status. Unfortunately, this eventually resulted in my decision to leave the company.A Human Resource Frame SolutionFrom a human resource perspective, I feel that the particular Starbucks store in question would benefit mostly from redesigning work. As outlined in Bolman and Deal, there are three factors to job redesign: to see work as meaningful and worthwhile, to use discretion and judgment in order to feel personally responsible, and to receive feedback (152-154). The authors indicate that employees are more likely to see work as meaningful and worthwhile when the jobs that they contribute to “produce a visible and useful ‘whole’” (Bolman and Deal 153). A unified target or goal draws people together naturally, and in the workforce, employees see their work as significant when the overall produce is a visible and useful whole. The management team at Starbucks sets store sales goals, and has even gone so far as to outline an incentive program for the employees, but has never followed through on these incentives, despite the fact that several sales goals have since been reached. For example, the management used “Customer Service Bingo” to increase partner/customer interactions. Squares included tasks like helping a customer select a whole bean coffee, or holding a promo drink tasting. The game began at the beginning of each week, with awards from the previous week being presented as the new game starts. One week, I had scored one BINGO row, for which the prize was to create my own schedule for one week. I handed in my schedule to the managers, but never worked my personal schedule. I also never received any feedback from the management team about receiving my prize. “Wholes” are being created by the parts (partners meeting their individual goals to contribute to an overall store goal), but the head is not recognizing the work of the body. Ignoring the results of partner work creates the opinion that the management sees the work of the partners as unimportant. Recognition of partner work as contributing to that whole in a tangible manner would increase morale and help restore some of the balance.Currently, partners are responsible for items like working their shifts, or finding a partner to cover a shift they cannot work, but that encompasses the whole of partner responsibility (aside from customer relations). Partners are not responsible in any sort of decision making when it comes to store operations. Some of this is understandable, as part of store operations requires some advanced training that not all partners are eligible for at the same time. Bolman and Deal indicate that sharing responsibility, decisions, and judgments can make job redesign work, because workers feel personally accountable for the jobs that they complete (152). I do not attempt to suggest that individual partners should be solely responsible for major aspects of store operations, but I do think that partners would benefit from clear explanation of how and why the store runs the way that it does, and the pieces that make the whole run efficiently. There is also the possibility for the scheduling issues to work themselves out if partners were responsible for specific operations from week to week, in that a regulatory feel might present itself, and the schedule more to something more predictable. One of the primary concerns surrounding the case study is the concept of communication between the management team and the partners. The structure in place makes logical sense: there are communication binders for exchange between shift leaders and the store managers, and one for exchange between the store as whole (partners, shift leaders, and managers). If the system was utilized as it was meant to be, then the store would function as a whole. However, these resources are under-utilized currently. This failure in communication is a direct contributor to the feeling of tension in the store. If this process was altered, for example, if the scheduling manager were to send a text message to all partners stating that the schedule had been altered, then I have reason to believe that a good portion of the communication issues in the store would be solved. The restate the last assumption of the human resource frame: “a good fit benefits both; individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed” (Bolman and Deal 122). In an ideal situation, the relationship between an organization and its individual employees is symbiotic, and both parties find a positive end result. However, this symbiosis is delicately balanced by several key components (fit being perhaps one of the most important), and as soon as one component finds itself out of balance, the entire relationship shifts. The human resource frame focuses on these shifts, and seeks to understand why they happen, and how the balance can be corrected. Reflection on the Human Resources FrameThe human resource frame, even though supposedly my dominant frame, still continues to be the hardest frame for me to evaluate at any level. One of the most interesting parts of the frame for me was the concept of fit and how responsible an organization is to its employees to provide a good fit. I was raised in a home where the attitude was that a job was a job, and no matter how crappy, we were lucky to have one. A paycheck is a paycheck. And until examining this frame, I felt the same way. Even though I was increasingly unhappy at Starbucks, I felt stuck. After studying the relationship between organizations and people, I found that wanting more, wanting better from my job was not an outrageous request. Just as my employer expects certain things from me, I have the right to expect certain things from them as well (like advancement opportunities, a fair amount of hours, and truthful conversations with management). If I am being truly honest with myself, this section of the study was when I began seeking new employment in earnest. The Political FrameBasic Assumptions Naturally, as employees and managers come together in the workplace, human relationships are formed as a result of the social contact. Bolman and Deal indicate that organizations as a whole are coalitions in themselves, and are inevitable in a political organization (195). Coalitions can form across various channels of commonalities: position, lifestyle, beliefs, morals, etc. In the organizational structure of Starbucks, an individual store is a part of a district, then area, then region. The store can be broken down additionally by partners, shifts, store management, and then the uniting of these groups across the district, area, and region groups, also. Starbucks as a store (and as a company) is a coalition as a result of the way the store is set up to run – in theory, deployment of partners on the floor while working dictates that the partners work together as a team in order to effectively serve customers. This interconnectedness often transcends work on the floor, and friendships are created. Partners find it easier to rally for or against certain measures when the coalition force of personnel is backing their platform. The emphasis is not on how an individual partner relates to the organization as a whole, but how the partners together, in human to human contact relate to the managers in various states of control, from a human perspective. In this manner, the partners make up the partisan group – their coalition works from the bottom up, and can initiate influence within the social atmosphere. Not necessarily in any sort of administrative control, but in person to person relationships the partisans in the store have some power. The person-to-person relationships develop mainly in alignment with the shifts that the partners work. For example, I find it easier to identify and connect with the partners that I work with on a daily basis. There is a very distinct divider between opening shift partners and closing shift partners. Conflict between these parties arises on the basis of different interests, needs, and work ethic because the two parties are made up of different personalities. However, conflict between these groups laterally is minimal. The management makes up the authorities group – they have the ability to initiate social control, which includes store policies that function from the top down. They receive influence from the partners in the coalition by taking part in round table talks, and by simply working in the environment they do with the partners/partisans in their social influence role (Bolman and Deal 202). Alignment with and within the management team functions very differently than at the partner level. While the general manager and the assistant manager attempt to present a united front, the way they interact with the partners presents a different story. Both managers have the same skill set, but their different jobs give them different responsibilities. In this respect, there is a scarcity of positions, and the two equally qualified individuals are competing for the same position. This competition manifests itself store-wide in alignment with and special treatment to specific partners. There is a tangible difference in the atmosphere between the two managers also. I myself prefer the assistant store manager over the general manager, and find that this alignment directly affects my work performance. The concept of “being different” is something that is stressed from grade school forward, and children are encouraged to pride themselves on the qualities that make them different. As such, when children grow up and enter the workforce, they become members of coalitions that will have differences that shape the positions that they take politically. Starbucks (as a business) needs profits and low labor costs, and these conflict with the partner need for a specific amount of hours. There are also differences from partner to partner; some work to support a family, others work to support just themselves, and still others work to give themselves spending money. Each partner has a different level of financial obligation. These enduring differences may cause certain individuals to form relationships with some partners, while forgoing relationships with others. For myself, I found it easier to relate to and align with individuals whose living situation was similar to mine: in school, paying my way, and only dependant on myself for funding. These factors directly influence the way that I view and value my job, and the closer I examine my relationship with my coworkers, the more I find that my patience runs very thin with those who have different opinions. In the same manner, I found that the general manager surrounds herself with those partners who view her and her work ethic in a positive light. Once constructive criticism creeps in, she begins to alienate the source. ScarcityTime and money are the two scarcest resources at Starbucks. There are only so many operating hours in the week that can be allocated to partners, and partners have a scarcity of money (in some form or fashion, or they wouldn’t be working). Working a number of partners that the company considers an excess would cost the company more money than it would ideally like to spend, indicating that the company bases its actions on a potential money scarcity. Starbucks experiences some informal scarcities as well. One example is found in the power conflict between the general manager and the associate manager. As the two parties conflict, they do so because they have equal skill sets but an unequal power within the store. The scarcity is in available positions. Their disagreements over scheduling, store policies, and conduct often escape their administrative time and filter down through the ranks. As this filtering down occurs, so does alignment, and the scarcity grows from power and position to a struggle for the respect from the partners. This scarcity was particularly apparent to me simply in partner conversation on the floor, and how the partners discussed each manager from day-to-day. I fit in here, where the conversation was, and the more I lost respect for the general manager, the more severely I treated her in conversation. During the holiday season, it is commonly accepted that the store functions better as a team, because the store as a whole is allotted more labor (in percentage to profits) to keep up with increasing business demands. Between holidays, the scarce resource is tangible partners, but in the same way that many businesses might hire seasonal help, our store simply bulks up on the amount of partners scheduled and the number of hours that they are scheduled for during the week. This typically meets our demand for more labor, and just as seamlessly provides the partners with the hours that they desire. Once holiday business begins dropping off (about January 1, or during that first week of the New Year) however, labor again becomes a scare resource, and the political atmosphere in the store becomes more salient and intense once again. Power as a ResourcePower is a key resource in dealing with this conflict (Bolman and Deal 195). The combination of scarcity (money and hours available) and enduring differences (the store as a business verses the partners as functioning financial members of society) make the conflict between the partners and the management central in the functioning of the store. In this case, power is the most important asset, and it lies with the managers – they alone have the power to create a schedule and alter it as they wish. Partners have some power (they can alter their availability in order to perhaps pick up more hours), but not nearly close to what the managers have and exercise. Bolman and Deal define power as “basically the capacity to make things happen” (196). Just as the manager has the power to create and change the schedule according to the stores’ needs and their own desires, the partner has power in their ability to challenge the schedule (request more hours or have shifts covered, in the event of an abundance) in order to facilitate change, or approach another partner to try and pick up hours. While both of these entities have power in their own right, it’s fairly easy to see which group has the largest concentration of power, and this group often makes things happen more than the other. Bolman and Deal also give Pfeffer’s definition power as “the potential ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things they would not otherwise do” (196). In my work with Starbucks, I find that the management often follows the first definition more closely, in that they are only using their power in order to make things happen, regardless of partner behavior or resistance. The general manager is extremely talented in her ability to manipulate her relationships with the partners, and often uses her positional power to make promises that she cannot keep. Personally, I have been promised a set schedule, a certain number of hours, and job advancement. All of these have been promised and none have come to fruition. However, my attitude changes after the promises are made, and I feel more aligned with her for a short while.Bargaining, Negotiation, and JockeyingBargaining at Starbucks may include opening up availability in order to boost hours, or trading off with someone in order to avoid getting cut early on a shift. Negotiation may include a conversation with the management about the hours needed in order to meet financial obligations, or speaking with fellow partners to arrange to take shifts in the event that a schedule week is short. Jockeying for position occurs often, and simply includes what may be crudely termed “sucking up” to the management. There are those partners who work their way through the system by stroking selected egos. One partner in particular verbally drums up his own press for the entire store to hear, and credits himself with any success the store finds, regardless of whether or not he was actually working. A combination of any of these three will result in some sort of decision on the part of the management (to allow a certain partner to work more hours) or on the part of the partner (to stay with the company, to leave the company, to attempt to move up in the hierarchy, or to collaborate with other partners. Store sales goals are the result of negotiation between the district manager and the store managers, and take into account previous sales volume, previous customer volume for a specific time period, and the amount of coverage available for a particular launch day or calendar month. While the district manager does have the final say on sales goals, he sets these after conversation has occurred, and the goals are always changing. If volume increases, then the goals increase, and vice versa. The various stores in the district compete with one another for titles like “Top (coffee promotion) Seller”, and they would be labeled as the stakeholders. Collectively, all the stores in our district make up a single stakeholder, who competes with other districts in the state in sales volume and customer voice ratings. Relational ConceptsBolman and Deal use Cyert and March’s relational concepts to illustrate some ways in which conflict is dealt with in the workplace. The goal is not always a stalwart resolution that solves every single aspect of the conflict, and there are instances in which an organization needs some conflict in order to survive. However, in those cases when there is an excess of conflict or it is interfering with the processes of the organization, these relational concepts outline the ways that an organization might react. In a Starbucks setting, this concept would look like this: the big problem is the labor percentage as a whole. Are the stores making enough sales and keeping their volume high enough to support the number of partners working the floor at any given time? The answer is usually “No”, and the district as a whole has a productivity quotient to maintain. The district looks at their productivity quotient and then looks at each individual store to determine where the inefficiencies are located. The larger problem of high labor (as a district) is broken down into a number that varies from store-to-store. The stores individually have a labor percentage. The store manager makes this available to the shift managers, who are responsible for cutting labor as they see fit on their shifts (opening, mid, and closing). This is the problem being broken down even further into smaller pieces. The shift managers are responsible for cutting labor until the store can still function, but is not overstaffed for the given day part. Just like in Cyert and March’s relational concept regarding quasi-resolution of conflict, the goal of cutting labor is to keep the coalition (the group of partners scheduled) functioning. At Starbucks, the company utilizes uncertainty avoidance comes in our Quality Self-Assurance Audits (QASA). These audits are contracted out to a third-party company (Eco-Sure), and occur in each store twice a year. The audit itself is fourteen pages of standards, written and defined by Starbucks, and covers every inch of the store, inside and out. These audits are not affected by our inspection from the Department of Health, and are independently evaluated. In order to be prepared for these audits, each partner is instructed on the standard operating procedure for both maintaining these standards on a daily basis and when the auditor actually arrives at the store. In order to simplify this process for the partners, there are several resources posted in various locations throughout the store: a complete audit is located in the communications binder, a critical item checklist is posted on the bulletin board, and each position has a checklist on a card for that area. However, other than the complete audit located in the communications binder, these “helps” only cover the critical items (the largest point sections) in the audit, so they keep the coalition together (still employed) by achieving the bare minimum. A standard operating procedure might break a problem down hypothetically, so that the reactions to a problem are already prescribed – a “no brainer”, so to speak. Traditions set precedence; if Problem A has always been dealt with in Manner A, and Manner A has always managed to keep the coalition functioning, then why deviate from the norm? At Starbucks, the problemistic search concept is employed in several areas, but most notably in dealing with our Quality Assurance Standards Audits. At first, when the failing QASA scores that my store was receiving began to cause a bigger issue with our district manager, the store managers simply began hammering the audits and the standards with each partner. There was scolding, write-ups, and reprimands, but no attempt to teach the partners what the standards were. Since then, the approach has differed, and I feel as though the management is moving away from a problemisitic search, and into one that will actually provide results. Now, instead of just assuming that each partner knows the standards and how to implement them, the management is taking conscious steps towards the education of the partners. During each shift, each partner is responsible for completing one page of the QASA audit. Additionally, in order to receive certification or recertification for the basic barista level, each barista had to recently demonstrate adequate knowledge of the standards. The management had adopted a policy that includes these measures that attempt to make the standards part of the behavior of each partner. This keeps the coalition functioning, but above the bare minimum. As illustrated in the examples above, the emphasis that the management (both at the district and at the individual store level) has placed on labor and on QASA standards had changed the way that the store functions. Because these items have taken precedence, other goals have fallen by the wayside; these include customer voice ratings, sales goals, partner education, and partner satisfaction. This leaning is one example of organizational leaning. Political Frame ReflectionMy biggest problem with the political frame was stepping away from prescribed relationships: manager to partner, partner to partner, etc. Once I was able to step away from roles and into relationships and alignment, a whole new dynamic emerged. I found that the majority of the partners based their alignment on how they aligned with either member of the management team. Myself especially, I found that the more another partner aligned with the general manager, the harder it was for me to work with them. This really surprised me, since I have always prided myself on liking everyone. But, I really don’t. The Symbolic FrameActivity and MeaningOne of the concepts that a Starbucks employee is introduced to in training and reminded of throughout his tenure with the company is the idea of the “Third Place.” The philosophy behind this is that a typical human spends their time (over the course of their lifetime) in three places: home, work, and an undefined third place. The company builds its customer service and lobby standard around its goal that Starbucks stores become the third place for its customers. There is no written standard philosophy; each store manager interprets this to his partners, who then interpret it and use their version of the philosophy to shape the way they deliver customer service and take care of the lobby during their shift. My interpretation of the third place involves customer service that ensures that our lobby customers receive everything they’re looking for with their cup of coffee: their drink is made correctly, it’s served in for-here serve-ware (it’s homey), they have the lighting and noise level that is conducive to their task, their work area is clean, and they have adequate room. My view is that working at Starbucks means they are taking a break from their previous work environment, and although a change of scenery may have been needed, the feeling should remain the same. Like Bolman and Deal, I agree that the Third Place is not about what happens; the task will change from customer to customer, we serve college students, business people, high school students, and many others. The Third Place does, however, hinge on meaning: a customer should be able to move from home to work to Starbucks and still accomplish their task as planned, and my care of the lobby should reflect that. Also like Bolman and Deal, activity (care of the lobby) and meaning (what Starbucks is to a customer), are loosely coupled. I don’t base my care around what feedback I have received from customers, I base it around what I want if I were a paying customer. Every customer that our store serves had a different purpose they are planning to fulfill when they walk in the doors and choose our lobby as a workspace. It is my assumption that each partner that I work with is the same way; the blanket thought is that people experience life differently, and each partner is going to see the lobby in a different manner. The activity is procuring a cup of coffee, but the experience is different for each individual. Again, it’s not necessarily what happens in the lobby, but what it means to the customer. SymbolsIn March of 2011, the Starbucks brand changed logos. The time prior to the change was filled with communication from the company to the partners explaining the reasoning for the move, and what the new logo was supposed to “mean” to the company, its employees, and its customers. The logo was a symbol for the company before – Starbucks is a household brand that combines coffee with connection, as well as charity (Starbucks partners with several charitable foundations and also encourages its stores and partners to contribute in their own communities), community, and inspiration. The company as a whole is a mammoth organization made up of many parts including whole bean coffee, espresso, and at home coffee. The logo is the umbrella under which all of the different branches are united. When the change occurred, partners were encouraged to engage with the customers about the change, so that when the hard launch occurred, the logo still provided the same assurance to our customers that it did before. The symbol already existed prior to the change, but the company felt the need to reassure our customer base that the company still stood for the same principles as before, just under a different picture. This is perhaps a reverse of Bolman and Deal’s assumption, but an example of it nonetheless. The Starbucks logo existed originally to resolve confusion about the purpose of the company, help direct customers and partners, and anchor beliefs about the company and what the company itself believed. The logo change had the possibility to undermine these goals, but the company took care to prevent these in order to maintain the stability of the logo. To maintain the culture of Starbucks and the strength of its logo as an internationally recognized brand, the company created the story about brand expansion.CeremoniesIn addition to the two weeks of training that a newly hired partner undergoes, all new hires also attend a Starbucks Experience class. This class is an all day event that acquaints new hires with the legacy and story behind the Starbucks Company; the leader of the class gives a short section about Howard Shultz and how the company came to be what it is. Howard Shultz is the CEO of the Starbucks Coffee Company, and responsible for the entire philosophy surrounding the Third Place and the culture of Starbucks as a whole. This is important because our customers know the history of the company, and in order to address their questions, the partner should know the history of the company as well. The class on the history of the company instills the partner with some sense of carrying on the tradition that was started with Shultz’ first store in Seattle, WA. The class also acts as Coffee 101: there is an introduction to the coffee philosophy, our whole bean coffee, and our take-home coffee. All the sections are short, and are by no means exhaustive, but whet the appetite of the partner. The Starbucks Experience class serves as a jumping off point for all of the continuing education and further certifications that a partner can pursue. The class is extremely beneficial for new hires and provides them with an extreme amount of information that jumpstarts their work as a seller of whole bean coffee. This class is one of the events and processes that Bolman and Deal refer to in the assumptions of the symbolic frame: the importance of the class is not in what is produced (because it is not exhaustive), but in what is expressed. The partners come away from the day with the “tapestry of secular myths, heroes and heroines, rituals, ceremonies, and stories to help people find purpose and passion” (Bolman and Deal 253). Knowledge of the company and what it stands for, and the ceremonies and rituals that the company maintains give the partners that connection to their organization, and starts the passion for customer service and coffee knowledge that the company strives to provide to its customer base. This class also introduces the partners to the culture of the company. It gives us all something in common, that we believe in this coffee culture. The coffee culture is what Bolman and Deal say: “that superglue” (253). Symbolic Frame ReflectionOriginally, I thought that I would have a blast with the symbolic frame. Starbucks is the daddy of symbolic companies! While I did have plenty of material to work with, the more that I dug into the information, the more disgusted I became. Especially in the store where I worked, it seemed to me that the managers relied so much on the story, on the ceremony, and on the symbol (like the legendary customer service) that the actual practical and operational functions of the store began to fall by the wayside. Before I studied the symbolic nature of the company, I was enamored by the story. It was romantic, and full of tradition, and powerful. Now I feel like the story is there, and it’s real, but it’s used by the company to distract people – from the high cost of the coffee, maybe?ConclusionThis examination in total completely changed the way that I view my occupation. From the structural standpoint, Starbucks works on paper. But carried out? It falls short in many areas, which directly contributed to my unhappiness as an employee. From the human resources standpoint, Starbucks does relate very well to its people (which, given the nature of my original case, was very surprising for me to realize). Politically, once I was able to see the informal roles in the organization, I also realized how much I play into this frame. Symbolically, I fell out of love with the whole Starbucks aura. It was extremely beneficial for me to be able to deconstruct my organization this way because the issues in my personal case are no longer black and white. While I’m still not convinced that the management is running my store in the best manner for it’s partners, I do see the difficulty they might face in running the store, and I can appreciate that on a level that I could not before. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download