Download Mishra-the culture of communication at Starbucks

10TH INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONS
RESEARCH CONFERENCE
“Roles and Scopes of Public Relations”
Best Western South Miami
South Miami, Florida
March 8 – March 11, 2006
Edited by
Marcia Watson DiStaso
Pennsylvania State University
336
The Culture of Communication at Starbucks
Karen Mishra
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
[email protected]
Tim Hendrick
San Jose State University
This qualitative study examined internal relationship management efforts in an
organization and its effect on employee trust and loyalty. It examined how
Starbucks communicates with its retail employees, as well as determined if those
communication methods built trust and loyalty. This initial study of employee
interviews from a southern store revealed that face-to-face communication is the
predominant method of communication at the retail level. The employees, both
baristas and managers, understood the importance of communication both to
motivate and support employees, as well as to facilitate a positive relationship
with their customers. It also found that while face-to-face communication is
considered “more rich”, reducing complexity and providing more information, the
benefits of face-to-face communication suffer when an organization is
experiencing stress, such as high turnover. Findings indicate that employees in a
retail operation differ in their approach to their jobs, with those who are more
career-minded focused on the positive aspects of face-to-face communication.
Despite the split in the ways employees approached their jobs, they all agreed that
the face-to-face communication made them feel like they were “more than just a
number” in a very large organization. They also agreed that their interaction with
customers was the most rewarding part of their jobs. Finally, they found that the
close contact and communication in their jobs helped them to do their jobs of
“making coffee” much more quickly and efficiently. The second study will
examine communication efforts at a number of west coast stores to explore the
similarities and differences in different parts of the country.
Internal communication between an organization’s leadership and its employees can be
an important method for building critical relationships that harnesses the enthusiasm, loyalty
(Reichheld, 2001), and trust (Mishra & Mishra, 2005) of an organization’s employees.
Employees have important knowledge and skills about both their jobs and the organization,
providing employees the opportunity to be ambassadors to the customer. This type of internal
marketing to employees (Schultz, Tannenbaum, & Lauterborn, 1992) leads them to be better
customer ambassadors (Lowenstein, 2006). It has been demonstrated in the teams’ literature that
happy employees lead to better service, which leads to happy, loyal customers (Mathieu, Gilson,
& Ruddy, 2006).
However, relationship management expert Michael Lowenstein (2006) determined that
“Only 24 percent of employees consider themselves truly loyal, committed to their organization
and its goals.” In fact, even relationship management theory (e.g., Ledingham & Bruning, 1998,
2000) focuses on external publics to the exclusion of internal publics such as employees. As a
result, employees can often feel left out of the entire process of creating products and services,
thereby hurting the ultimate relationship with the customer (Lowenstein, 2006).
337
The purpose of this study is to examine the specific methods Starbucks employs to
communicate with its employees and whether or not those communication methods build trust
and loyalty with its employees. This study employs in-depth interviews with employees to
reveal whether or not strong internal communication efforts are in place and whether those in
turn lead to strong relationship-building efforts between Starbucks and its employees, hence
creating strong feelings of loyalty to the firm.
This study will draw on concepts from several different literature in order to examine the
many aspects of employee relations, including relationship management in the public relations
and marketing literature; loyalty, trust, and organizational culture, which are found in the
management literature; and internal communication, which is found in both the management and
communication studies literature. The relationship management literature examines the
relationship of an organization with its publics. The loyalty and trust literatures have focused on
the importance of building loyalty and trust with employees for both retention and job
satisfaction of employees. These two foundations can then inform the relationship management
literature about the importance of including employees as key stakeholders. Finally,
organizational culture and internal communication both potentially influence relationship
management as well as a variety of outcomes, such as employee job satisfaction and
commitment.
Relationship Management
The focus on building relationships with customers, publics, stakeholders or constituents
is found in both the marketing and public relations literature. In the marketing literature, it is
called relationship marketing. The relationship marketing literature has focused on the
importance of building long-term relationships with customers (Sharma & Sheth, 1997) by
partnering with customers, suppliers, and allies to achieve long-term loyalty. While most of the
relationship marketing literature focuses on the behavioral actions of the organization to
customers, Stern (1997) emphasizes the role of “emotion management” in which it is possible to
build a closer emotional tie to the consumer through well-trained employees who convey a sense
of caring to the customer. She believes that by developing “intimate” or emotionally close,
relationships with customers, employees create a stronger bond with the consumer on behalf of
the company. The attributes of this organization-public relationship include communication,
caring, commitment, comfort, and conflict resolution.
In the public relations literature, some scholars define public relations as relationship
management (Ledingham & Brunig, 1998). This parallels relationship marketing in that it also
calls for public relations to focus on “the development of relational responsibility” (p. 56). To
build strong interpersonal relationships requires four dimensions of “investment, commitment,
trust and a comfort with relational dialectics” (p. 56), or a comfort with two-way communication.
These dimensions overlap with the emotional attributes of Stern’s (1997) relationship marketing
efforts. Ledingham and Bruning (1998) found that “an organization-public relationship centered
around building trust, demonstrating involvement, investment, and commitment, and maintaining
open, frank communication between the organization and its key public does have value in that it
impacts the stay-leave decision in a competitive environment” (p. 59). This statement implies
that those strong relationships can prevent customers from switching to a new supplier because
of factors such as price-sensitivity.
In a later study, Bruning and Ledingham (2000) found that community members’
perceptions of personal and professional relationships with their bank explained 75% of the
satisfaction variance, indicating the benefit of building those relationships for customer
338
satisfaction. In both of these studies, however, the focus was on building relationships with
customers, not employees. Whether building relationships with employees can indeed lead to
employee loyalty and customer satisfaction is an area that needs to be explored. In addition, the
relationship marketing and relationship management literatures are not clear about who in the
organization is building these interpersonal relationships or specifically how these relationships
are built. Whether or not the “organization” itself can build relationships is an area that remains
unanswered.
Loyalty
For a long time, loyalty was one aspect of relationship building that could not be
quantified, but managers knew intuitively was a worthy goal. In 1996, Frederick Reichheld
wrote “The Loyalty Effect,” which quantified some of the reasons for businesses to encourage
loyalty among both employees and customers. Reichheld’s study demonstrated that it was more
costly to gain new customers and employees than to retain existing ones. More recently,
Reichheld (2001) defined truly loyal employees as those who have “responsibility and
accountability for building successful, mutually valuable relationships” (p. 12). One of the
organizations Reichheld (2001) highlights is Dell computer. Its founder and CEO, Michael Dell
writes, “You need to engender a sense of personal investment in all your employees—which
comes down to three things: responsibility, accountability, and shared success. Mobilize your
people around a common goal. Help them to feel part of something genuine, special and
important, and you’ll inspire real passion and loyalty” (p. 35).
A term used interchangeably with loyalty is commitment. In particular, Meyer and Allen
(1997) noted that “committed employees are more likely to remain in the organization than are
uncommitted employees (p. 11).” Meyer and Allen found three types of commitment: affective,
continuance, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is a desire to maintain
membership in an organization based on an emotional attachment, an acceptance of or
identification with the organization’s values, and an involvement in the organization.
Continuance commitment is “an awareness of the costs of leaving the organization” and
Normative commitment refers to a feeling that an employee “ought to remain with the
organization (p. 11).” While Meyer and Allen focus on the effect of management practices on
commitment, there is no mention of the role of communication.
Internal Communication
Internal communication is critical for building trusting relationships between employees
and the organization (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) that are open and honest (Mishra & Mishra, 2005)
but has often been overlooked as a less-important part of a manager’s job (Bobo, 2000).
Communication efforts are often taken for granted as managers believe that employees already
know what is happening in the organization or that they might not really care (Davis, 2000).
Instead of relying on traditional ways of communicating via newsletters or weekly staff
meetings, there is a new emphasis on promoting dialogue with employees and facilitating
learning (Davis, 2000) both face to face and by utilizing new media, such as internal blogging
and intranet forums.
Organizational communication has been characterized in terms of a manager’s use of
“rich media” (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987), or media that varies in its ability to convey social
cues in order to reduce uncertainty and equivocality. In a study of middle- and upper-level
managers, Daft, Lengel and Trevino found that managers match the type of media used to
communicate with employees with the task before them. Their typology of rich media ranges
from high media richness (i.e., face-to-face communication ) to low media richness (i.e.,
339
unaddressed documents). In between the extremes they placed the telephone and addressed
documents. They found that for tasks that are ambiguous, managers use more face-to-face,
personalized communication, or rich media. In addition, they found that for tasks that are less
ambiguous and more straight-forward, managers are more likely to employ less rich media, or
communication that is written and less personalized. The concept of “rich media” is important to
understanding how organizational communication is developed between managers and
subordinates.
Trust
Trust can be conveyed through effective communication (Mishra & Mishra, 1994) via
openness and concern. Openness, which is also a dimension of relationship management theory
(Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) is defined in terms of perceptions of openness and honesty, where
“leaders who are more trusted are more effective in acquiring skills, retaining and attracting
followers, and promotion change and innovation” (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, p. 58). In
addition, a cultural “performance” provides the executive the opportunity to show personal
strength, or the strength of their character (Pacanowsky & O’Donnell-Trujillo, 1983, p. 141), as a
way to build openness in the organization. “The extent to which the trusted person engages in
undistorted communication then reinforces the trust (in terms of openness) placed in him or her”
(Mishra, 1996). Previous research has found that trust is positively related to organizational
commitment in a variety of corporate contexts, such as downsizing (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen,
2002; Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Brockner, Spreitzer, Mishra, Hochwarter,
Pepper, & Weinberg, 2004).
In summary, this exploratory study will examine the organizational culture of Starbucks
in one retail operation, to determine whether or not Starbucks employees perceive themselves to
be important stakeholders, in addition to the other publics they serve. The in-depth interviews
with employees will provide a window into the shared world view of Starbucks employees to
determine how internal communication affects the relationship between employees and the
organization, including their perceptions of loyalty to the organization and whether or not there
are feelings of mutual trust between Starbucks employees and management.
Methodology
The data for this exploratory study were collected via in-depth interviews and analyzed
qualitatively in order to ascertain how Starbucks employees feel about their jobs and the meaning
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) that they make about employer relationships management and
communication efforts. This author’s casual observation and rapport with the assistant manager
of a local Starbucks store was the impetus for entry to the setting. This prior relationship was
important to establishing trust and recognition of the language and culture of the organization
(Fontana & Frey, 2000). In-depth interviews were conducted with four employees and a
manager—all women. The interviews were conducted one-on-one, audio-taped, and transcribed
for later analysis. Each interview lasted no more than one hour. Each Starbucks employee who
agreed to participate was invited to meet at a time and place convenient to both them and the
primary investigator. The interviews were conducted in either their own Starbucks store or
another Starbucks store, which was mutually agreed upon by the interviewee and the interviewer.
The semi-structured interview (Fontana & Frey, 2000) included questions involving their
employment at Starbucks and how their manager communicates with them on a daily basis. The
primary questions were developed with the approval of the District Manager of Starbucks as well
as Starbucks headquarters representatives in Seattle, Washington. The unstructured interviewing
340
style allowed the interviewer to ask each interviewee to expand on specific answers they gave
that were unique to their understanding and interpretation of their job (Fontana & Frey, 2000).
All participants seemed open and honest in their responses, judging from their body
language. When the questions became a bit personal, such as asking a follow-up question about
the challenges as well as the positives about working for Starbucks, the participants were
reassured that all of their responses would not be shared with Starbucks management in a way
that would identify them. In all instances, the participants just shrugged their shoulders as if to
say with their body language that anonymity was not important to them. In listening to their
responses, I tried not to let my own experience color my thinking about their responses, good or
bad. I do believe that my experience as a customer allowed me to have a better understanding of
what they do on a daily basis, which allowed me to quickly establish trust with those employees I
had not met before. I was sure to let them know that this was an opportunity for me as both
customer and student to learn more about their job and the company they work for.
The interview data were coded using cluster analysis (Foss, 2004). First, the interviews
were analyzed for key terms based on frequency or intensity. Second, the interviews were
mapped for other terms clustered around the key terms, such as those that are found nearby a key
term or that may connect to a key term. Finally, the analysis examined patterns of association or
linkages to identify which clusters are most interesting or of greatest importance.
Results
Using cluster analysis, several themes emerged analyzing the text of each employee
interview: job vs. career, store communication styles, the people, making coffee, and working for
Starbucks. Clusters of words that described both shared and individual world views surrounded
those themes. The level of agreement about those themes seemed to be consistent with the
employees’ level of commitment to Starbucks as an organization where they would pursue a
long-term career.
It was interesting to note that all employees found their job at Starbucks either through a
friend, or from their mothers, who encouraged them to apply. In other words, word-of-mouth
was a driving force in how these employees applied for jobs at Starbucks.
Job vs. Career
In listening to the Starbucks employees describe their jobs and their perspective, the first
thing that is quite noticeable is the distinction between whether or not they view their work as a
job or a career. That distinction frames the way they describe their job, its activities, the
communication process, and their satisfaction with their position. Those employees who use the
words, “we” say things like they “love it so much, I want to make it my career.” They also talk
about how “if you’re interested, Starbucks will work with you” making opportunities for
advancement, training, and promotion. One employee mentioned that while she “would love to
make it my career, but I don’t want to move out of North Carolina.” On the other hand, there
was talk of “it is just a job. I want to do good work, but it is just a job. We don’t do it because
we want to increase the tremendous profit of Starbucks.” This rhetoric affected the way
employees evaluated the communication styles of their managers.
Communication Style
Based on that split between a career-oriented employee and a job-only employee, there
was a distinction between the ways they viewed their managers’ communication styles, even
across stores. Most employees had worked for more than one Starbucks store, so they drew on
experiences from all stores when talking about managerial communication. There was
341
consensus among the four interviewees that communication between managers and employees
was overwhelmingly face-to-face as there seemed to be ample opportunity to interact with
managers as they were working side-by-side during a shift. One employee described her feeling
that despite what she’s heard people say about how large Starbucks is, she “doesn’t feel like a
number.”
The respondents generally believe that the smaller stores, like the one where these
employees all currently work, seemed to provide a more informal mode of communication since
employees were all sharing jobs during a shift, as opposed to larger stores where they had
previously worked that have a more formal distribution of duties. One employee noted,
however, that “some managers are more diplomatic than others,” further indicating that some
managers had a way of constructively teaching employees while others were not as positive in
their instruction. Good managers, with respect to communication styles, were described as
“approachable,” “open-minded,” “receptive,” and “willing to listen.”
On the other hand, managers were also described as “receptive or not.” Most employees
talked about the “one-on-ones” that managers initiate with their employees to check-in and find
out how things are and if they have questions or need help in attaining their goals, but in
different ways. Some describe manager methods as helpful in attaining those goals, while others
found that a manager might say “is there anything you want to tell me, but it is not clear that she
really wants to know.”
In addition, no matter how positive or negative their experience with their manager is, all
employees agree that “information is not always clear” and that “information trickles down
through the shift supervisors.” One issue that became clear as this store is busy hiring new
people is that “people get overlooked—we don’t always tell partners (employees) they are doing
a good job. We forget to encourage them.” In addition, these employees believe that this store
has a history of higher-than-average turnover (at least this is the employees’ perception) which
they think leads to a sense that they “don’t always know that is going on with management
changes.” They expressed feeling “kind of in the dark.” The manager I interviewed expressed
frustration in not being able to find the right people to hire fast enough; rather, she said she
prefers to find the best people rather than just anyone to fill the open positions.
Overall, the employees interviewed feel that when their managers are distracted, there is
a change in their communication styles. On the one hand, they describe their managers as
“approachable” and “willing to listen,” but on the other hand, they describe communication in
times of chaos, like now when they are hiring many new people, as “isn’t always clear.” One of
the employees, who is a shift supervisor, a level between Barista and Manager, was very
concerned about the impact of the chaos of new hires on communication with existing
“partners.” She said she was so concerned that she was working to implement a “Mug award” in
her personal development plan. The Mug awards are opportunities for managers to give
employees pins in the shapes of mugs when they see them doing a good job. This award is used
throughout the Starbucks chain. It is supposed to be an informal way of communicating that
they are doing a good job, but in the current chaos of turnover and new hires, the mug awards
have not been used recently at this store.
The People
Communication seemed to have an impact on how employees perceived their enjoyment
working with co-workers or “partners” as well as customers. Overall, employees said they are
impressed with their co-workers and it was obvious to them that Starbucks hires the right people
with “the right personality.” They articulated the term personality as a “passion for Starbucks”
342
or a “passion for doing a good job.” They described their co-workers as “awesome”, and as
being “the best part of the job.” The manager I interviewed also articulated this view, saying that
she spends a lot of time trying to hire the right people. She said that she doesn’t want to hire just
anyone looking for a job, but wants to hire someone who seems truly interested in working for
Starbucks.
They also thought that the staff reflected the diversity that Starbucks strives for in its
mission statement. They commented particularly age diversity, as the managers had recently
hired a 47-year-old barista, whom they all were surprised to enjoy. They also expressed surprise
that most managers were so young (in this case, under 30). Overall, they described camaraderie
among the staff that they think is important in bringing customers to “the third place.” This term
was used by Howard Schultz in his book, “Pour your heart into it” (1997) in which he describes
home and work as being the first and second places that people spend time, and his desire to
create a “third place” where people prefer to relax in their free time.
The employees also said they love their jobs because of their customers. All of the
interview participants expressed an interest in “serving customers 100%” and felt frustrated
when they were not able to do that, because of the time it take to train so many new employees.
They all said they enjoy the interaction they have with their customers and “feel like they help
improve a customer’s day.”
The manager described her philosophy of customer satisfaction as “Just say yes.” She
recounted how there are times that customers will walk in with obviously copied or fake coupons
for a free drink, but she will still give them one. If a customer is dissatisfied and requests a new
drink, “even if they come back in with only ½ of the drink left”, she said she will give them a
new drink. “So what, that they are trying to get something for free. So what, that they drink
most of a cup of coffee and just want a free second cup—we should just say yes—it will
encourage them to come back satisfied the next time.” One employee said that she could see a
difference between customers based on the stores she has worked at, describing some customers
as friendly and some as cool. She also described how through working at Starbucks she “gets to
know my community better.”
Making Coffee
All participants agreed that while it is challenging to start working at Starbucks as a new
employee, they eventually figure out their job and “should be able to make a drink in two to
three minutes.” One other employee declared, “It’s not like it’s rocket science.” They learn how
to make coffee from each other, their supervisor and “book-work.” They all described the
“book-work” involved in learning the machines, learning how to make drinks, as well as doing
“book-work” to move up in the organization. They expressed a level of comfort at the
procedures and manuals available, which helped them to learn “the Starbucks way.” Because
“everyone does everything” they said they felt like they were able to learn much faster from each
other and that their partners were supportive in that learning process.
Working for Starbucks
Everyone expressed their happiness with the benefits that Starbucks provides, saying that
it is a combination of benefits and excellent pay that brought them to Starbucks in the first place.
Starbucks also provides tuition reimbursement, which is probably why two of the four employees
interviewed are working while going to college. Both of those employees are paying their own
way through college, so the tuition reimbursement would be a valuable benefit. The biggest
benefit they all described, however, is the “flexible schedule.” Most noted that they could not
find another service job willing to be so flexible in scheduling their time. The two college
343
students believe that this flexibility made it easier for them to manage their schoolwork and job
responsibilities. One employee mentioned her surprise at how strictly Starbucks followed state
laws enforcing break times each hour, even though they must be paid during breaks.
Challenges
While this was not the focus of the questions, each interviewee mentioned some of the
challenges that they have encountered working for Starbucks. The biggest challenge everyone
mentioned was working in the service industry. This employment entails direct contact with
customers, which they believe means that they are always “on”, whether they feel happy or not.
In addition, there are days that the customers are grumpy, which respondents believe makes it a
challenge for them to do their job well. The manager recounted a story about Grumpy Bob, a
customer who came in every day, but never smiled. Her staff all decided that they would make
Grumpy Bob so happy with their service that he would eventually smile. She was happy to
report that their hard work paid off and he is now one of their favorite (happy) customers.
As noted from earlier comments, this store has the immediate challenge of being
understaffed, which puts pressure on the current employees to quickly train new ones, as well as
to work with employees from other stores who are brought in to cover holes in the shifts. As
previously mentioned, respondents feel that this challenge puts a strain on any positive
reinforcement that managers usually provide their longer-tenure employees. They fear that strain
might result in the more-experienced employees feeling slighted. Finally, one manager
wondered about the effect of baristas of all ages working for younger and younger managers.
She mentioned that “many of the baristas work here part-time, as a second job, and they are
much older than the manager. It must be awkward for them to work for someone so much
younger than they are.” This observation was based on her own feelings about the age
discrepancy and not anything specific that an employee had mentioned to her.
One final worry the manager of this store mentioned was her concern about airport
Starbucks--“I am concerned about our expansion into airports and similar venues because I
worry that this will dilute the quality of our product. I often hear from our customers when they
return from a trip how the coffee at the airport did not meet their expectations. This hurts our
reputation, too.”
Discussion
As George Cheney (1999) has pointed out, “In considering how democracy gets put into
practice in the workplace or how values are maintained in an organization, we must look
carefully at the role of communication, for language contributes greatly to shaping what we
understand to be reality. Even during times of organizational chaos and disruption,
communication can shed light on the values of the organization because they will most likely
revert to the most common denominator in the way that they treat employees. I take a close look
at what makes an organization (of any type) possible on a day-to-day basis: communication
(Cheney, pp. 24, 31).” Overall, the Starbucks where these respondents work appears to be very
aware of how communication between managers and partners affects their ability to do their jobs
and feel good about their work. It also appears that there are many mechanisms in place to keep
the channels of communication open, however, when a store is understaffed, like the store whose
employees participated in these interviews, it puts a strain on those normally honest and open
communication patterns.
Employees stressed the importance of face-to-face communication when getting
information from their managers or approaching them with questions or sensitive topics. This
344
“rich communication” (Daft, Lengel & Trevino, 1987) seems to flourish in the small store
atmosphere despite the sophisticated technological means of communication available to society.
Cheney (1999) observed, “In most business situations, as on the street, face-to-face
communication and one’s word are considered more reliable than letters, memos, or written
reports. (p. 58).
Starbucks has been criticized in the press for expanding too quickly, and one negative
result of growth and change in this environment may be that current employees feel left out. As
Cheney (1999) noted in the growth of the Mondragon cooperatives, “To what extent is it possible
for a business to maintain a core of social values—such as participatory democracy—while
growing, becoming more complex, and being financially successful?” (p. viiii). This point
becomes the question for Starbucks, as well, because the regional managers have more stores
under their control and their attention is divided among those stores.
Employees varied in the degree to which they exhibited loyalty or commitment to
Starbucks. As previously mentioned, there was a difference in the ways that employees
described their roles at Starbucks as either “jobs” or “careers”. Examining Meyer and Allen’s
(1997) definition of affective commitment, it would appear that there is a continuum of
commitment, with those who view their roles as “jobs” having less emotional attachment, less
identification with the organization’s values, and less involvement in the organization.
Contrasting this view are those employees who described their role as Starbucks as a “career”
and what the future held for them at Starbucks. These employees exhibited an emotional
attachment, identified with Starbuck’s values, and felt involved in the organization enough to be
concerned about whether customers and current employees were getting the short end of the stick
as they trained new employees.
Cheney (1999) found in his research on the Mondragon cooperatives (1999) that “…some
employees are now using the metaphor of ‘internal markets’ to argue strongly for their rights as
‘customer’ of management’s policies, (p. 162).” Is this positive or negative for the organization?
One employee took a positive view by saying, “Starbucks has big company advantages in a small
company atmosphere.”
Limitations and Future Research
This study is useful in understanding the perspectives of young Starbucks employees
perceptions of their jobs and communication patterns with their managers. In order for these
results to be generalizable, however, it would be necessary to interview additional employees
from other Starbucks locations to examine the differences among managers and regions. In
addition, it would be beneficial to interview a wider diversity of employees, including men and
older employees to ascertain a breadth of employees’ perceptions.
The participating employees emphasized the challenges of operating in a service
environment, and future research should investigate how the communication methods used by an
organization contribute to the success of meeting service requirements in a service environment.
As George Cheney (1999) has pointed out, “In my teaching and research about organizations for
nearly twenty years, I have focused on two distinct arenas, treating the internal and external
affairs of the organization largely as separate universes….However, it has become clear to me
that these two domains of activity are necessarily interrelated (p. x).” It is clear that there are
tensions for these service employees between how they interact with customers and how they
themselves feel they are treated. Per Cheney (1999), “An organization’s internal and external
affairs thus are intertwined in a number of important ways. Perhaps the best metaphor for those
relationships is a ‘floating equilibrium,’ which suggests that they must continually be examined
345
and adjusted” (p. 120). The intertwining should be the basis for further research, to determine
how internal affairs affect external affairs. As firms change and grow, the extent to which they
include employees in their planning will affect how their employees positively impact their
customers.
References
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267-285.
Bobo, C. (2000). Gaining support for a strategic emphasis on employee communications, Public
Relations Tactics, 7(2), 18.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J., Tyler, T. R., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The
moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558–
583.
Brockner, J., Spreitzer, G. M., Mishra, A. K., Hochwarter, W., Pepper, L., & Weinberg, J.
(2004). Perceived control as an antidote to the negative effects of layoffs on survivors’
organizational commitment and job performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49
(1/March), 76-100.
Cheney, G. (1999). Values at work: Employee participation meets market pressure at
Mondragon. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H. & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and
manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly, September,
355-366.
Davis, A. (2000). Communicate to create learning, Public Relations Tactics, 7(2), 26.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln’s (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd
Ed.) (pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln’s (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed.) (pp.
645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Foss, S. K. (2004). Rhetorical criticism: Exploration and practice (3rd Ed.). Longland, IL:
Waveland Press.
Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991) Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of
Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998) Relationship management in public relations:
Dimensions of an organization-public relationship,” Public Relations Review, 24, 55-65.
Lowenstein, M. (2006, February 14). The trust equation: Build employee relationship
credibility, rapport and integrity to leverage customer advocacy, CRMGuru. Retrieved
March 6, 2006 from http://www.Crmguru.com.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L. & Ruddy, T. R. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An
empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 8.
Mayer, R. C. & Gavin, M. B. (forthcoming). Trust in management and performance: Who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal.
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
346
Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (1994). The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing
strategies. Human Resource Management, 33, 261–279.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In Kramer, R.
M. and T. Tyler (eds.) Trust In Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mishra, A. K. & Mishra, K. E. (2005). Trust from near and far: Organizational commitment and
turnover in franchise-based organizations. Selected to be presented in a symposium:
“When trust is an uphill climb: Studying trust in contexts that do not encourage it" in the
2005 Academy of Management Meeting, August 5-10, in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Pacanowsky, M. E. & O’Donnell-Trujillo, N. (1983) Organizational communication as cultural
performance, Communication Monographs, 50 (2), 126-147.
Reichheld, F. F. (1996). The loyalty effect. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Reichheld, F. F. (2001). Loyalty rules. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240.
Schultz, D. E., Tannenbaum, S. I. & Lauterborn, R. F. (1992). Integrated marketing
communications. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Books.
Schultz, H. (1997). Pour your heart into it. New York: Hyperion.
Sharma, A. & Sheth, J. N. (1997). Relationship marketing. Industrial Marketing Management,
26, 87-89.
Stern, B. B. (1997). Advertising intimacy: Relationship marketing and the services consumer.
Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 7-19.
Appendix A. Interview Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
How long have you been working at Starbucks?
What is your favorite part of working at Starbucks?
If you were to write a recruitment brochure for Starbucks, what would it say?
Tell me about how you and your manager communicate.
5. If there is one thing you’d like me to know about your job, what would it be?