Starbucks'

structural
perspective

Summary

1. Introduction and purpose of the paper

1
4
 2. Presentation of Starbucks
3. The theoretical frame/perspective
4. Analysis and reflections
5. Concluding discussion
6. Annexes

Introduction and the Purpose of the Paper

We all live in a world of (well or badly) managed organizations. Our day lives are
dependent on large public organizations, small businesses, well-known private
companies or even voluntary groups. The ways these organizations are structured varies
a lot and even in the same business categories companies/organizations differ a lot.

The organization that we will evaluate/discuss in this study is Starbucks

Coorporation.

Starbucks initially started in 1971 as a very small structure, run by three partners in a
small shop in Seattle. By that time the company then was simply selling whole bean and
ground coffee but after taking over the operation of Starbucks in 1987, Schultz decided
to expand the company's business, which has now shops all around the world. (From the
case “Starbucks Corporation: Competing in a Global Market” written by Professors
Suresh Kotha and Debra Glassman, both from the University of Washington, Business
School, April 7, 2003 from:
http://www.foster.washington.edu/centers/gbc/globalbusinesscasecompetition/Documen
ts/Cases/2003Case.pdf)
1
4
By writing this paper we want to perform a comparative analysis and apply a structural
frame over Starbucks organization. The goal is to understand how Starbucks works and
operates; moreover it will provide us a reference of the structural framework of a well-
known company. It’s important to compare several theoretical structural frames with
Starbucks organization to understand better why they are so successful.
That is why, after a brief historical story of the company, we will explain the theories we
choose to use for our analysis. Then, we will draw the evolution and composition of the
structure of Starbucks, with analysis and reflections about it.

I. Description of Starbucks

The description of the company is based on the timeline from the Starbucks homepage
as well as on articles from internet.

Starbucks Corporation is a coffee company. It buys, roasts, and sells whole bean
specialty coffees and coffee drinks through an international chain of retail outlets.

Background 1971-87

Starbucks was founded in Seattle, Washington in the historical Pike Place Market in
1971 by three partners-English teacher Jerry Baldwin, history teacher Zev Siegel, and
writer Gordon Bowker. They picked the name Starbucks after the coffee-loving first
mate in Moby Dick, then designed a two-tailed siren for a logo and set out to learn
about coffee.

In 1980, Zev Siegel left the company, Jerry Baldwin took the management for the
company and became the Chief Executive Officer and Gordon Bowker continued as an
owner.

In 1982, Starbucks hired Howard Schultz to manage the company's retail sales and
marketing. After a trip he made to Italy, he advised the company they should introduce
coffee and espresso drinks as well as beans, but found his bosses reluctant, being still
more dedicated to retailing coffee. As a result, Schultz left the company and in 1986, he
opened his first coffee bar named Il Giornale.

Private Company 1987-92

In 1987, Schultz bought the Starbucks chain and rebranded the Il Giornale outlets as
Starbucks Corporation and started to grow quickly. By August of the same year
Starbucks had 11 stores and fewer than 100 employees. The first store in Chicago was
opened in October and by 1989 Chicago had nine stores with employees trained by
Seattle managers.

Their methods of expansion were quite expensive but Starbucks market started to grow
fast. In 1988 Starbucks initiated a mail-order catalog and by the end of that year, the
company was serving mail-order customers in every state.

Schultz's management philosophy, “hire people smarter than you are and get out of their
way”, fed his aggressive expansion plans. In order to take his plans of growth he was
1
4
willing to lose money and hired two star executives: Howard Beharand and Orin Smith.
In 1990 the headquarters expanded and a new roasting plant was built.

Public Company 1992-2008

In 1992, Starbucks went public and it was characterized for being one of the first
companies giving stock options to its employees with contract or indefinite as part-time.
In that year stores were opened in San Francisco, San Diego, Orange County, and
Denver. By the end of year there were a total of 165 stores. In 1994, Starbucks broke
into new important markets, such as Minneapolis, Boston, New York, Atlanta, Dallas,
and Houston, and purchased the Coffee Connection, a store rival based in Boston. Smith
was promoted to president and Chief Operating Officer and Behar became president.

The famous frozen coffee dink Frappuchino began to being served in their stores in
1995 at the time they opened new stores in Pittsburgh, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and
Philadelphia. That same year Starbucks began to supply coffee for United Airlines and
launched a line of Starbucks compilation music CDs that were sold in its coffee houses.

Starbucks continued with their national expansion and began an overseas expansion by
opening locations in Japan in 1996 with the help of SAZABY Inc. a Japanese retailer
and restaurateur. Stores were opened in Hawaii and Singapore as well. In the same year
Starbucks developed and sell Starbucks Ice Cream, which became the number one
coffee ice cream in the United States.

(from: http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/Company_Timeline.pdf)

Starbucks bought Seattle Coffee Company, the leading U.K. specialty coffee firm, in
1998 and began rebranding Seattle Coffee's locations under the Starbucks name.
Starbucks hoped to use its U.K. base for an invasion of the Continent, expecting for 500
stores in Europe by 2003 (from: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-
histories/Starbucks-Corporation-Company-History.html).

In 2000 Howard Schultz went from chairman and CEO to chairman and chief global
strategist while Orin Smith was promoted to president and CEO from 2001 to 2005. In
January 2008, Shultz returned to his roles as President and CEO after an eight-year
break, replacing Jim Donald, with strategy of returning to the firm’s roots and bringing
back the “Starbucks Experience” after sales slowed in 2007 (from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks).

Starbucks planned to close about 600 underperforming stores in 2008 and stop U.S
expansion plans along with growing economic insecurity. These closings and layoffs
effectively ended the company’s period of growth and expansion that began in the mid-
1990s (from:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008028854_starbucks02.ht
ml).
1
4
 I. The Structural Perspective

We are now going to explore the theories about structural frame, as support of our study
we used the fourth edition of “Reframing organizations” Artistry, Choice and
leadership, of Lee G.Bolman and Terrence E.Deal, printed in 2008.

In a generic way it is possible to say that an organization structure describes the way
tasks are divided, supervised and coordinated. Back in 1979, Mintzberg defined
organization structure as “the sum total of ways in which it divides its labor into distinct
tasks and then achieves coordination among them”. (“Reframing organizations”
Artistry, Choice and leadership, of Lee G.Bolman and Terrence E.Deal. Fourth edition,
printed in 2008).

Whatever the type or the purpose of an organization, they all have basic issues. They
must achieve established goals and objectives, increase efficiency through a proper
division of the labor and have forms of control and coordination. Moreover they have to
fit and deal with unstable environments and rationality must prevail over personal
interest or external pressure.

When studying organization structure we have to know how the work is allocated
(differentiation) and how to coordinate roles and units (integration). We also have to
know how the individual and groups efforts are combined, there are two ways:
vertically or laterally.

In a vertical coordination we have the figure of the authority, the right that someone in a
specific role has to take decisions, allocate resources or give instructions. There are a
variety of roles and polices that helps all stakeholders to know what they can and cannot
do and to ensure that similar situations are handled in the same way. There are also,
planning and control systems, which Mintzberg has divided in two major approaches
performing control and action planning. The first one imposes outcome objectives
without saying how these goals could be achieve and second one gives specific methods
and proper schedule for each action and decision.

In a lateral coordination we have meetings, which allow all the involved to share
opinions, ideas to improve process or help taking specific decisions. Urgency,
importance for the organization or size of team may lead to the creation of task forces. A
matrix structure is when those doing a task report to both a functional and a projector
divisional leader. Networks, is when tasks required by one company are performed by
other companies with expertise in those areas. Although efficient, vertical coordination
is not always the best choice or the most effective one. Lateral coordination has both
strengths and weaknesses because e.g. a meeting although a good opportunity for
everyone share ideas if not properly managed might be a waste of time if nothing gets
decided or if time is running short to do other tasks.
A successfully company is the one that knows how and when to use the different
approaches for achieving its goals.

When creating an organization structure managers will have to face some structural
imperatives. The first one is the size and age. A small and young company usually has a
very simple structure but complexity and “formality” increase with size or age. Then,
we have the core process which must be aligned with structure so as to avoid important
disruptions in daily operations. The structure of an organization also has to adapt itself
to the environment. While a stable environment might be more easily addressed by an
organization with a simple structure, an instable and turbulent one will be, surely, more
suited to an adaptable structure. Strategies and goals stand for others imperatives, in this
1
4
way, structure and process must be both flexible so as to adjust themselves to the
changes. Another imperative is the information systems. They have an important role
both in implementing the processes and also giving more flexibility to an organization, a
good tool. The last but not least is the nature of the workforce, mainly in Europe and
USA, because of a higher work complexity and shorter time-to-market. It is nowadays
implying a newer kind of employees with higher education levels that also carries with
it a more demanding and less stable employment force comparing to the employees of
the past.

Structural Imperatives are not the only issues managers have to face; they are also
confronted with structural dilemmas like differentiation versus integration. Sometimes
the more complex a structure is the harder is to maintain the company together while in
other situations it’s the stiffness of the organization that holds the key to success.
Another dilemma is gaps versus overlaps; sometimes the responsibilities are not very
clear or the processes produce an overlapping of roles that lead to several conflicts.
Underuse versus overload is also a very important problem that might cast a shadow
over several companies. Underperforming employees affect productivity and create a
bad working environment to others but a stressed and overloaded team does not perform
well in the long run; as usual in management there’s a balance every company needs to
find.
Another dilemma concerning managers is the balance between clarity and creativity; if
the employees don’t know specifically what they are supposed to do they tend to
concentrate their work in personal preferences instead of focusing on the organizational
goals. Autonomy versus interdependence impacts the way teams behave because if
people are too autonomous within the groups the employees might tend to feel lonely
and drift away from company culture (if any) but if the interdependence and
relationship is high sometimes people also gets distract from their work. The same
applies to the stiffness of the organization. You build a very loose organization and you
lose focus but if the structure is too tight you kill creativity. The type of organization
you implement relates to kind of business you are in: an automotive factory has no
space to creativity on the plant floor (process and productivity) while an advertising
agency needs all the creativity in the world and must not implement a very stiff
organization with schedules and rules (flexibility and creativity).

Goal setting also depends on the kind of company you run and the market environment
you face. It depends on if you need to set long term goals or tactical objectives is what
you seek and it depends on the workforce you are dealing with; for instance a sales
force doesn’t perform without very clear objectives.

Now that we know some of the problems that a manager has to deal with when leading
an organization, it is important to study the structural frame. Several authors established
their theories upon structural configurations. For example, Henry Mintzberg draws a
five sectors organization. At the base, he set up the operating core (people that perform
the basic work), then the middle management (managers who supervise the operators),
and at the top, the strategic apex (those who set the mission and the values of the
organization). On the sides, we have the technostructure (specialists and analysts that
help with the evaluation of the outputs) and the support staff that help the work of the
others.
From this basic schema, Mintzberg defined five different major structures
configurations: the Simple one, the Machine Bureaucracy, the Professional Bureaucracy,
the Divisionalized Form and the Adhocracy. (See the schemas on Annex 1). All of them
have their own strengths and weaknesses and it is the manager’s role to know which is
the more appropriate for the company.
1
4
But they are several other approaches and structure’s names. The author David Boddy,
in his book “Management, an Introduction” printed in 2005 refers to others
organizations structures according to the way the work is divided. There is the
Functional structure, where people work in specialized departments, the Divisional
where people work in departments, none as strategic business units, the Matrix where
people are based in functional groups and then work for a divisional group on distinct
tasks, a Teams Structure (specialized teams get different tasks) and finally Networks,
where the organization just acts as a broker between independent organizations that
contract and provide services as required.

In that sense we can say that for every structure we can find successful companies. The
trick appears to be the balance the manager finds between contingency factors and the
organizational structure through which resources are deployed and managed. Moreover,
as the result of internal or external changes, every organization, no matter what core or
type, has to restructure at some stage in life. Restructure is more than a fashion, in some
cases, is really a matter of survival.

Mintzberg study still retains much of the traditional portrait of structure as a top down
pyramid. Another author, Helgesen, says that the idea of hierarchy is primarily a male –
driven depiction, different from the structures created by female executives, “the
women tended to put themselves at the center of their organizations rather than the top”.
Helgesen has defined the expression “web of inclusion” to demonstrate an organic
architectural form more circular than hierarchical. (“Reframing organizations” Artistry,
Choice and leadership, of Lee G.Bolman and Terrence E.Deal, page 86. Fourth edition,
print in 2008).

Restructuring is never an easy option for the manager. Pressures arise from all the
Mintzberg’s five groups: Strategic apex asks for more centralization, middle managers
want to run their own independent units, technostructure make pressure for
standardization, support staff cries for more cooperation and the operators ask for less
control.

This part enables us to understand better the difficulties that face a manager dealing
with the structure of his company. We now know that there are imperatives and
dilemmas for instance, that managers have to restructure sometimes and that there are
many ways to do so.

II. Analysis of the Starbucks Company

Thanks to this theoretical part, we are now able to analyze the structural frame of the
Starbucks Company.

As we have already said in the description of the company, Starbucks began with three
academic teachers, Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegel and Gordon Bower. The first Starbucks
was just a small store with a core process much different from today; they sold coffee
beans and coffee products. Initially they had just one paid employee, Siegel. Baldwin
kept the books and tried to manage the small organization and deal the accountancy
part. They order the coffee supplies by mail from a little store in Berkeley, California.
(http://www.mhhe.com/business/management/thompson/11e/case/starbucks.htm).

The first Starbucks store had, according to “Mintzberg’s five”, a Simple Structure, like
almost every company that begins its activity. This structure was a result of the
1
4
structural imperatives such as the small and the young life of the company. The external
environment did not seem the best one to open several stores or a bigger one, as most of
the American consumers did not have the habit or even the curiosity to drink or learn
about coffee. And they did not have as well a clear strategy or goals.

This simple initial structure had only two levels, the strategic apex and the operating
level. It was a structural configuration similar to Mintzberg’s simple structure but
upside-down, the strategic apex was bigger (three men) than the operating core (one
unique employee). This type of structure provided them some advantages; it was a
structure with lots of flexibility (the three could run the entire operation), the
responsibilities were clear, the cost were not too high and they could easily notice and
evaluate daily problems. But this structure also carried some disadvantages, with three
bosses too dedicated to day-to-day operations and distracted by immediate problems,
neglecting long-range issues (“Reframing organizations”, Bolman & Deal, fourth
edition, p79-80).

When Schultz joins the picture the big leap forward he had to take was to change
Starbucks core, moving from selling coffee beans to selling coffee and provide other
services to make the company grow. After a trip Schultz made to Italy he believed that it
was possible to transport some of fantasy of the Italians cafés but a simple structure was
not the more suitable one. As the company grew and changed its core process, it had to
restructure.
For Schultz the idea of changing a visit to Starbucks into a special moment, a place to
meet friends and enjoy, required an important change of nature of the existing work
force. That is why he created the role of Baristas, normally young employees who had a
proper education. It is at the same time that information technology role started to
emerge as a crucial part of Starbucks strategy.

Starbucks then change to a machine bureaucracy structure. Between the strategic apex
and the operating core (which they already had) emerged a middle management, and
also a support staff and a technostructure. Baristas became the new operating core and
the employees who supervise, coordinate, control and provide the resources became the
middle management.

For some routines tasks, this kind of structure could be efficient and effective but one
problem of this structure is operating core personnel’s motivation (“Reframing
organization”, Bolman & Deal, fourth edition, p80-81). In Starbucks one of the ways to
try to keep the employees happy and motivated was to extend health care benefits to
part-time employee because according to Howard Schultz they were vital to Starbucks,
constituting two-thirds of the company’s workforce.

Like most of the companies with this type of structure, Starbucks has to deal with some
tensions between local managers and headquarters; it is not easy to find a solution to
cope with both the needs of the individual units and global objectives. That is one of the
reasons that motivated Starbucks to start asking their employees for ideas and
suggestions on how to improve the organization.

With the international expansion of Starbucks came the creation of a new subsidiary,
Starbucks Coffee International (SCI), to orchestrate overseas expansion and begin to
build the Starbucks brand name globally, via franchisees (from
http://www.mhhe.com/business/management/thompson/11e/case/starbucks.htm). As a
result of this expansion Starbucks’ structure evolved to a sort of a Divisionalized Form.
The reasons of such a change are the variation in size and age (getting bigger and older)
1
4
but also in the core process because the company is not anymore selling just coffee.
Indeed in a Starbucks shop you can now buy cakes, tea, or even ice cream: the time of
selling just coffee beans is rather far away.
This new structure offers economies of scale, ample resources and responsiveness
without undue economic risks (“Reframing organizations”, Bolman & Deal, fourth
edition, p83-84). One of the major problems with this kind of organization is the
possibility of headquarters to lose some touch/control of the operations in the other
countries. “Divisionalized enterprises become unwieldy unless goals are measurable
and reliable vertical information systems are in place” (As referred to Mintzberg, 1979
in “Reframing organizations”, Bolman & Deal, fourth edition, p85).

As Kathy Lindemann, SVP of Operations for Starbucks International stated to US News

and World Report in 2003, “Our approach to international expansion is to focus on the
partnership first, country second. We rely on the local connection to get everything up
and working. The key is finding the right local partners to negotiate local regulations
and other issues. We look for partners who share our values, culture, and goals about
community development.”

Although all the shops have the same policies and rules, the food is adapted to the local
tastes, for example in Asia Starbucks offers Curry Puffs and meat buns. The company
also fits its interior décor to the local architecture, especially in historic buildings. “We
don't stamp these things out cookie-cutter style,” said Peter Maslen, president of
Starbucks Coffee International to US News and World Report in 2003.

Now that we had an overview of the global structure of Starbucks from its beginnings to
today, experiencing simple structure, machine bureaucracy and then divisionalized
frame, we can focus on more detailed matters. Thanks to various examples we will be
able to determine if nowadays, all around the world, Starbucks is using a vertical or a
lateral coordination.

As in many companies, Starbucks use vertical coordination, is ruled by a Chief

Executive Officer (Howard Schultz). He is the one standing as the authority - he
organizes, he runs the group, he decides the strategy and sets the goals. His task is not
the easiest one since he is finger-pointed as the responsible when the company faced
hard times and he had to find a “quick fix”. One way used by H. Schultz to supervise
the whole organization is to forbid franchised shops. It is a mean to be sure that every
shop produced the same coffee and follow the same rules. Some would say that it leads
to a lack of creativity because managers of their own shop cannot make what they want.
They are not allowed to be autonomous; they must stick to the rules and sell exactly the
same coffee or tea. But thinking in a global perspective, Starbucks shops are
interdependent and if they don’t follow one guideline, the company will lose its image,
its personality.

All this does not erase creativity. Indeed, employees can feel free to send cards with
their ideas, claims or other types of remarks to their managers. It is not mandatory to
precise your name. Moreover, managers have to answer to a signed card in two weeks
timeframe. This system shows that the head of the company cares about its employees’
feelings and wants to listen and help them. It stands for a part for lateral coordination.
But the company goes farer; it asks employees to criticize it and had formed an entire
department dedicated to answer the remarks. The Starbucks Mission Review program,
1
4
allows every employee to express himself and to comment on whether company
decisions are consistent with the company's Mission Statement and Guiding Principles.
The company thinks that the point of view of every partner is usefull not only on the
local scale but also in the daily operation of the whole company. In the same line, in
1990, a People Growth Team was created (from
http://www.greatplacetowork.com/education/innovate/honoree-2005-
starbucks.php). It was a way for “partners”, as Starbucks called its employees, to give
their feedbacks about the evolution of the company. It was an opportunity for them to
express themselves. The team has been formed with people from various hierarchical
levels which once again proved the efforts of the company to access a better
communication between all the members.

About the planning and control systems, there are two ways of acting: by performance
control or by action planning. The first one focuses on the results and the second one
focuses on the process. In this case they are both relevant because each one was used by
the company. In Starbucks, the CEO highlights the importance of the value of the
product, the wellbeing of the employees to then be able to reach the satisfaction of the
customers which is the key to the success. He insists on the way to make the coffee,
gives the rules about how to decorate the shop, how to organize it. Those details should
lead us to say that the action planning system is the Starbuck’s one. However the main
goal of the company is to spread all over the world, building news shops in various
countries. But those philosophies are linked because such an expansion wouldn’t be
possible if there wasn’t an action planning system with it. Indeed focusing on the
process is a way to insure the safety of the company, if people are not satisfied with it,
there is no use to want to spread. Actually we can say that the company is using both
strategies to reach its goal, it focuses on process and results.

Nowadays the trend has changed, the time of opening shops in various countries, like
three by day, has gone. The whole world is moved by a financial crisis. For instance, in
July 2008, Starbucks had to close 600 stores in United States because the sales were not
enough highs to make profits. New goals were implemented; the idea to spread was
push aside. Schultz decided to concentrate on the process to ensure the satisfaction of
the customers and that they will continue to visit his shops.

This new trend was the start for a new strategy. H.Schultz was asked to come back as
the CEO because he stands for “the” leader of Starbucks. Indeed he always has been the
one who gave the main line to follow. With the financial crisis, he chose to change the
strategy, he leads Starbucks trough a new goal. Spreading was no more the point but
focusing on process replaced it. He wanted his employees to focus on the value of the
product, the well-being of the Baristas such as to give to the customers a well-being
impression while getting in his shops.

If we want to analyze deeper the leadership role of Schultz we can use the Blake and
Mouton grid (“Reframing organizations”, Bolman and Deal, fourth edition, p346-347).
Those two men think that the leadership is based upon the concern for people and tasks.
This ideology has been said too restrictive, because focusing on only two perspectives.
However, it could be interesting to try to place Schultz in such a grid. They described
accurately five ways of being a leader. The minimal management refers to a low
1
4
concern about people and tasks. The indulgent management is concentrated upon
people, setting aside task matters. For the integrative manager, both individuals and
tasks are very important. The authoritarian one mainly focuses on tasks. Actually, in the
middle of all this kinds, there is the compromise management, the manager who feels
concerned by both but not in an excessive way.

After our analysis of the Starbucks’ structure, we learned the way Schultz leads his
company. As he points out the well-being of his employees as a very important thing for
the satisfaction of the customers, (we can remind all the advantages they have: stock
options, health system…), we can say that he is concerned about people. But now with
the financial crisis he has become more worried about the tasks. A leader adapts his
strategy to the situation he has to cope with, and so did Schultz. At the beginning, he
focused on his staff; he was more an indulgent manager. With the financial crisis he had
to focus more on the process and he changed to a compromise management.

As a conclusion of this part we can say that Starbucks has to continuously evolve and to
make its organization change in relation to the world surrounding it. Like every
corporation the most difficult task is to find the right balance between the vertical and
the lateral coordination and this is the leader’s task. Focusing on the first one can make
employees ill at ease, stressed; it can lead them to a minimal investment on themselves.
On the other hand, the lateral coordination is not perfect. Even if a great communication
is a key to the success (which they have) a fine balance point has to be achieved in order
to keep Starbucks as one of the most successful enterprises in the world.

Conclusion:

To resume our study, we did a SWOT analysis about the structure frame to easily
understand which are the main Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.

SWOT
ANALYSI Internal External
S

Strength Opportunity
• Good vertical coordination with an • . Focusing on the
authoritarian figure who settled roles quality of their
and policies so as to keep a group product.
personality.
Positive • Focus on the well-being of the
employees so as to diffuse a
welcoming atmosphere.
• Capacity of adaptation to the
environment: dealing with the crisis,
Shultz implanted a new structure bye
giving new guidelines concentrated
on the process more than the result.
Negativ Weakness Threat
1
4
 • Need to restructure and this step is • The financial
always a huge challenge. crisis
• Seeing as an American spreading • The risk to by
company, standing for the focusing on the
globalization. process put aside
• Some employees still feel se aside in employees
the decision making process problems.
• The growing
feelings of
e
rejection of the
globalization and
indeed big
companies such
as Starbucks.
• The concurrent
for example the
one of Mc
Donald’s starting
to cell coffees.

Now that we master the Starbucks’ structural frame, we can compare it to the others
perspectives. That is to say: symbolic, politic and human frame. We will then be able to
point out the one which, from our point of view, seems the most important for the
Starbucks Company. We will also base our reflection upon “Reframing organizations”
of Bolman & Deal.
The symbolic frame focus on how people make sense of the chaotic and ambiguous
world that we live. Based on social/cultural anthropology, it points out questions of
rationality as the only way of understanding the organizations. The symbolic/culture
frame is very important, is the basic organization glue, it creates in a company sense of
belonging and sense of uniqueness. The loyalty of any brand is emotional; Starbucks is
losing a lot of costumers because they cannot see anymore the old values that made
Starbucks so famous all over the world. She underlined this paragraph and added a
question mark, so I don´t what is she meaning with that.
This frame is very important to study a company like Starbucks. One of the five
symbolic frame suppositions is that in many cases is most important what it means and
not what happens (“Reframing organization”, Bolman & Deal, fourth edition, p253),
some events (such as drinking a coffee) are often more important for what is expressed
than for what is produced. In the history of Starbucks we see myths (the name
Starbucks, is one of them), vision (“to make the best coffee in the world”), heroes,
humor and play in the stores, some rituals and ceremonies (drinking a coffee could be
for many people a kind of routine which gives sense to each day). The symbolic frame
is another perspective interesting to study because in contrast to the traditional views
(structural), which emphasize rationality and objectivity, the symbolic perspective
highlights the tribal aspects of a contemporary company like Starbucks. (“Reframing
organization”, Bolman & Deal, fourth edition, p277)
The structure of the company itself must even be looked at through the symbolic
perspective, not just the structural perspective. The current structure of Starbucks has a
pretty tight control over what the different unites in the rest of the worlds are allowed to
do.
But structure is not only linked to symbolic, politics has also a huge influence upon it.
Indeed, the political frame is important because it is focused on strategy and tactics for
1
4
dealing with conflict. A manager must be a politician, must has the skills and a good
strategy to achieve noble purposes. It is as well a very important perspective to study, in
such a big organization the CEO should have the ability to identify relevant
relationships, invent options for mutual gain, negotiating and bargaining, try to
maximize and take the best of his employees. Howard Schultz is the one standing as the
leader in this company. He organizes, he runs the group, he decides the strategy and sets
the goals. He is taking the responsibilities.
Finally, we have the Human Resource perspective which in our opinion is the most
important frame to study our company. Starbucks could have a very good structure, a
CEO that act like a good politician, and even could have a strong symbolic part behind
the company, but without people, without a good team of employees, little would get
done. Indeed, the CEO of Starbucks always points out the well-being of his employees
as a very important thing for the satisfaction of the customers. Howard Schultz and his
HR teams always try to hire the right people, to be selective, to give them formation and
the tools they need to serve the costumers in the best possible way. In the same line,
Schultz focused on giving many advantages to his employees like the health care system
or some stock options for instance. One of the main secrets for the success of the
Starbucks is the Baristas, with their sympathy and knowledge about coffee they can
transport the costumers to the fantasy of the Italians cafes.
To conclude we can say that every frame has an important role in an organization, the
degree depends of the company. For the one we studied, the human resource seems to
be the key one as the success of the shops rely on the employees’ behaviors: if they feel
good and convey a relaxing and welcoming ambiance, the deal is won! This study let us
get aware of the importance of each frame of an organization and the need of coherence
between them as they are strongly linked. As a final conclusion we can underline the
use of organizations. People and organizations need each other; but organizations exist
to serve human need and not the other way around.

Annex 1:

Mintzberg’s five

Simple structure
1
4
Machine bureaucracy

Professional bureaucracy

Divisionalized form
1
4
 Adhocracy

Annex 2:

References:

Books and texts:

• Case “Starbucks Corporation: Competing in a Global Market” written by

Professors Suresh Kotha and Debra Glassman, both from the University of
Washington, Business School). Revised April 7, 2003

• “Reframing organizations”, Artistry, Choice and leadership, of Lee G.Bolman

and Terrence E.Deal. Fourth edition, print in 2008 by Jossey-Bass.

• “Management, an Introduction”, David Boddy, from Prentice Hall, third edition,

2005.
1
4
Websites:

• Website visited the 09/09/09 at 12p.m:

http://www.greatplacetowork.com/education/innovate/honoree-2005-
starbucks.php

• Website visited the 09/09/09 at 13p.m: www.starbuck.com

• Website visited the 18/09/09 at 14p.m: “Starbucks’ case study”

http://www.mhhe.com/business/management/thompson/11e/case/starbucks.htm

• Website visited the 09/09/09 at 12p.m:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Starbucks-Corporation-Company-
History.html

• Website visited the 09/09/09: “Starbucks Corporation: Competing in a

Global Market”

http://www.foster.washington.edu/centers/gbc/globalbusinesscasecompetition/Documen
ts/Cases/2003Case.pdf

• Website visited the 09/09/09 at 13p.m:

Allison, Melissa “Starbucks identifies 600 U.S. stores it's closing” (July 2nd, 2008)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008028854_starbucks02.ht
ml

• Articles from the economist:

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Burgers or beans”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=23

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Coffee”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?bg=797292

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Trouble brewing”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=8776372

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Not enough froth”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=10490218

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Perky people”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=131284

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Coffee with your tea?”

1
4
 http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=808595

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Coffee wars”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=10498747

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Direct from the source”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=11058477

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Grounds zero”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=11670630

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Comeback kings?”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=12896749

 Website visited the 02/09/08: “Just add water”

http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/PrinterFriendly.cf
m?story_id=13145808

1
4