Pour Your Heart Into It (40 page)

Any company that has expanded as dramatically as Starbucks inevitably realizes that fast growth can be painful for the individuals involved. At Starbucks, we try to promote from within, but sometimes the sheer speed of growth outpaces the abilities of our early contributors. We also find that people who throw their hearts and energy into their work to the degree that we do are at an especially high risk for burnout. A company whose growth never stops accelerating seldom manages enough time to reward its employees for achievements other companies would celebrate.

For me, the most painful downside of growth has been those few occasions when we’ve had to let go caring, committed people who were not up to the next level needed. I’ll never forget the day when one loyal, long-term partner came to my office in tears because his manager told him he didn’t have the expertise to stay in his job. “This is
my
company, dammit!” he shouted. I was filled with sympathy, but not sure how much more we could do for him. Fortunately, he was able to find another position at Starbucks, but others have had to be let go. For me, this kind of experience is gut-wrenching. It forces me to consider the question: How far should we go to provide for an individual if he or she is not contributing as much as we need?

Almost as difficult have been those times when passionate, devoted partners come to my office to tell me they can’t take the stress anymore. It’s happened too often. I’m aware that the demands of the work and the level of intensity at Starbucks are too high for many people. It’s harder for some than for others to sustain passion about work day after day, year after year. But when you’ve shared a dream and a goal with someone, it’s hard to see him or her go.

In contrast, one of the most rewarding experiences for me has been to witness the development of gifted people who do grow with the company, however painful that maturing may sometimes be. At one board meeting not long ago, I watched with pride and respect as one of our executives made a highly professional and persuasive presentation. She was Christine Day, now Starbucks’ vice president of operations services, responsible for strategic planning for our biggest division. She is the same Christine who joined Il Giornale as my office assistant when we had one store.

Christine’s success is a good illustration of the opportunities to grow a career within a quickly expanding company. But her progress hasn’t been without its moments of angst. When we bought Starbucks, the transition was hard for her. She had to let go of many of the things she had managed and carve out a new role with a narrower set of responsibilities. Her job eventually evolved into one of managing purchasing, traffic, and inventory, and coordinating new store construction until 1990. She had to transform herself from a generalist in an entrepreneurial company to a specialist in a professionally managed one.

In 1990, Christine became vice president for store planning, during a period when our store opening schedule was accelerating every year. In April 1995, she moved to retail operations. Gradually, she became more comfortable and more capable as she acquired the knowledge and experience she needed at each level. She had to learn to live with constant change and pressure, while some of her colleagues chose not to make the transition to working for a large company.

Christine adopted the Starbucks vision as her own, as have most of the other managers at the company. “We all believe,” she says. “We believe because there’s value and quality in the product and in the people we work with and in the work environment. That’s what makes it special and why it works.”

Although Christine is the only one who advanced from assistant to vice president, Starbucks is filled with individuals who, like her, chose to stay and grow with the company, despite the hurdles. Our longest-tenured partner, Gay Niven, started in 1979 answering phones for the merchandising manager, when the old Starbucks had only three stores. She later headed retail merchandise buying as we grew to the 50-store level. Since then, she has developed retail training programs and worked in several depart ments, becoming our chief storyteller and helping to pass on the legacy and culture to new people.

Deborah Tipp Hauck, whom I hired as a store manager in 1982, is today vice president for markets and products. Jennifer Ames-Karreman, who in 1986 was the first Il Giornale barista, later headed retail operations for the Northwest, and then became retail director for coffee. Countless others, still keeping alive the passion that brought them here, have found ways to develop fulfilling careers by gaining experience in a variety of departments. Many of those who helped refine our Mission Statement in 1990 have remained, whether in our roasting plants, in our warehouse, or in our retail stores.

It’s hard, from the CEO’s office, to assess how well our passion is taking root in newer markets. In December 1996, I racked up a lot of frequent-flyer miles by attending pre-Christmas sales meetings in California, New England, Wisconsin, and Canada. I was the keynote speaker at each. As I sat and listened to the opening speeches, I took note of the connections people had to one another, and to the coffee, and finally to the company itself.

One of these gatherings took place in Newport, Rhode Island, for partners from New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and New England. It was the one meeting I was most concerned about, because I was sensitive to the fact that the East Coast is a more difficult operating environment. Some have told me it’s harder to find people there who are not cynical about employers and work. I was afraid that, at these meetings far from Seattle, I’d see a fracturing of the Starbucks culture.

But to my surprise, I found myself overwhelmed with the energy and passion I saw in every region, especially in New England. Going from city to city, I heard managers stress the same themes and I saw the same reactions from the audience. I saw laughter and enthusiasm at the same inflection points. Partners I had never met came up to me to say they had never worked for a company that cared so much.

That trip taught me that there are people in every city who want to believe that work can be more engaging and rewarding than punching a time clock. I can’t know everyone’s name anymore, and we can’t be as familiar as we were in 1987, but Starbucks can still be an employer of choice by providing a work environment with more camaraderie and concern and emotional rewards than most.

Our partners know what’s genuine and what’s phony. When I speak to them from the heart, they relate to the Starbucks vision and the Starbucks experience. When management listens to their concerns and responds honestly, they realize that Starbucks is neither faceless nor impersonal. We are going to make mistakes. But if our people recognize that what we’re trying to do, in our hearts, is build value for us all, they’re more likely to forgive the mistakes. Many are already coming to understand the advantages our size brings, and are helping to ensure that we can grow big and still be the same kind of company. They
are
Starbucks, and its success reflects their achievements.

CHAPTER 21
How Socially Responsible Can a Company Be?

The evidence seems clear that those businesses
which actively serve their many constituencies in
creative, morally thoughtful ways also, over the long
run, serve their shareholders best. Companies do,
in fact, do well by doing good.

—N
ORMAN
L
EAR, FOUNDER
T
HE
B
USINESS
E
NTERPRISE
T
RUST,
IN
A
IMING
H
IGHER
BY
D
AVID
B
OLLIER

As CEO, my primary responsibility is to the people of Starbucks: partners, customers, and shareholders. I also feel accountable to those who came before me, those who created the legacy of Starbucks and built it into what it is today.

To me, “corporate responsibility,” the term President Clinton used for a conference of CEOs in May 1996, means that management must take good care of the people who do the work and show concern for the communities where they live.

So what about “social responsibility,” the term used by companies that give a percentage of their earnings to charity, or sell organic products, or try to save the rain forest? We don’t use that term to describe Starbucks’ approach, in part because our company doesn’t have any political leanings, and we encourage a diversity of opinion among our people. On balance, though, I think it’s a positive when others categorize us with such enterprises because “contributing positively to our communities and our environment” has long been part of our mission.

Still, as an employer and a public company, Starbucks needs to sustain and grow its business. We need to generate profits to demonstrate that the company is healthy and well-managed. Actually, we’ve never distributed dividends; all our profits go right back into the business.

Some shareholders think companies should not make any charitable contributions; they prefer to make these decisions directly, rather than through stocks they own. But I have a different view. To reflect the collective values of our partners, we believe Starbucks as a company should support worthy causes in both the communities where our stores are located and the countries where our coffee is grown.

Who should set the agenda to decide which causes to support and how? And how far can we take this responsibility if it seems to conflict with the needs of building our brand and our business? Those are questions that become increasingly troubling as we grow and become more capable of making a difference.

W
HEN
THE
U
NDERDOG
B
ECOMES

A
W
INNER, THE
C
HEERING
S
TOPS

Before Starbucks went public in 1992, we were a struggling Seattle company trying to make it big. Once we made it, though, public attitudes toward us began to change. Some of the same people who once rooted for us began to snipe at us. Once they decided we were no longer an underdog, they looked for ways to knock us down.

When measured against five million satisfied customers a week, our detractors are few in number. But when you are sincerely trying to build an enterprise with high principles, you can’t help feeling discouraged when your intentions are misunderstood, and at times even misrepresented.

Many of our customers and shareholders still view us as a beloved local coffee company, an inviting Third-Place café, a tenacious enterprise that’s always trying out bold new ideas. But our very success tended to make others suspicious of us and eager to believe the worst they hear. I’ve been called a “coffee magnate” and accused of being arrogant and ungenerous. It’s the downside of success, and it’s hard to swallow.

Executives at big corporations grow accustomed to being magnets for attacks from cause-oriented groups. When Starbucks started being targeted, it caught us off-guard. We were so used to regarding ourselves as the good guys, as the struggling underdogs, that we couldn’t believe others would want to attack us. At first, we were confused by what we perceived as simple misunderstandings. We responded honestly, and sometimes we got bitten.

W
HOSE
C
ODE OF
C
ONDUCT

S
HOULD
Y
OU
F
OLLOW?

When we set Starbucks’ standards high, we never anticipated that we would be criticized
because
we set high standards. That’s what happened in late 1994, when a network of Guatemala activist groups started a leaflet and letter-writing campaign against us.

Some background: In April 1989, Peter Blomquist, then Northwest regional director for CARE, the worldwide relief and development foundation, was standing in line at a Starbucks. While waiting to order his morning cappuccino, he picked up a Starbucks brochure entitled
A World of Coffee
, which included a picture of Dave Olsen and a map showing the countries around the world where we buy coffee. Almost all were locations where CARE sponsors health, education, and other humanitarian aid projects. “You could have laid that map over a map of countries helped by CARE,” Peter recalls.

He approached Dave about donating to CARE, and both agreed it was a natural fit. After traveling to almost every coffee-growing region in the world, Dave knew only too well how poor the living conditions are in rural areas of the Third World. By paying a premium to farmers who grow high-quality coffee, he believes we are inherently supporting local economies while also providing incentives for better-quality coffee. Still, we depend on coffee growers for our livelihood, and he was enthusiastic about the idea of helping improve their lives through an organization with a proven track record.