Deconstructing Starbucks – The Four Frames of Management

IS 550 – Management of Information Organizations

Amanda Nichols November 29, 2011

Nichols 2

I 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,

Nichols 3

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 Event

During 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

Nichols 4

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

Nichols 5

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 Frame

The Six Assumptions of the Structural Frame

In 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,

Nichols 6

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

Nichols 7

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

Nichols 8

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 Integration

The 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

Nichols 9

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 Coordination

Nichols 10

Bolman 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

Nichols 11

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 Frame

According 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 Frame

One 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.

Nichols 12

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 Frame

Starbucks 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

Nichols 13

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.

Fit

The 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

Nichols 14

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 Solution

Nichols 15

From 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

Nichols 16

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

Nichols 17

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 Frame

The 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 Frame

Basic 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

Nichols 18

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

Nichols 19

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.

Scarcity

Nichols 20

Time 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.

Nichols 21

Power as a Resource

Power 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

Nichols 22

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 Jockeying

Bargaining 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 Concepts

Nichols 23

Bolman 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

Nichols 24

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.

Nichols 25

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 Reflection

My 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 Frame

Activity and Meaning

One 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

Nichols 26

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.

Symbols

In 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,

Nichols 27

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.

Ceremonies

In 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

Nichols 28

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 Reflection

Originally, 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

Nichols 29

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?

Conclusion

This 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.