Runninghead: PCA STRUCTURE 1

Olivia Brookshire

Module 2 PCA Structure

Professor Scholar OGL 481

May 31, 2020

PCA STRUCTURE 2

Restatement

The event I have chosen to analyze is an overdose resulting in a death in my Starbucks

store in Atlanta, Georgia. In this situation I was a shift leader. The heroin epidemic in particular

had a major impact in my community. In addition, it was wintertime and we always experienced

an influx of problems as the weather got colder and more homeless who suffered from addiction

would use our facilities. Our store experienced increased loitering and robbery because of this. It

was not until the death that preventative changes were made but piled on to hourly workers.

Structure Influence

I believe that the structure between my store, our district, and Starbucks was a machine

bureaucracy structure, as discussed in Chapter four of Reframing Organizations, due to the large

support systems and techno-structure that sets the standards for the many drink recipes and

cleaning tasks. Starbucks operates at an extremely large level, requiring them to follow this sort

of structure. Besides the literal assembly line method that is used to produce drinks, Starbucks

follows machine bureaucracy by sending out weekly updates directly informing partners on what

to do and how to do things based on certain situations. In addition, Starbucks created a company

solely for Starbucks that does surprise health inspection audits on stores to ensure that Starbucks

standards are being followed, in addition to state health inspections. For almost any problem or

question, Starbucks has an answer for how it should be handled the Starbucks way. For example,

The Partner Contact Center handles everything from payroll issues, to work disputes, inventory

problems, and so on. However, rather than taking matters into their own hands when my store

experienced an overdose resulting in a fatality, Starbucks addressed the symptoms rather than

diagnosing the source of the problem and using their power to make a viable change. I suppose
PCA STRUCTURE 3

this was because no one was expecting an on-site fatality, so they were just teaching us how to

be safe. Unfortunately, we were not preparing for the worst.

After the death, we were still following these special protocols but without the correct,

professional support. Management informed shift leaders to make non-paying customers leave

the store, which often resulted in calling the police to handle it. This angered the homeless who

could not longer use our café, and there were times that death threats were made and they

followed partners home. We had to put passcodes on our bathrooms which extremely angered

our loyal, paying customers and did not prevent drug users from using it. We had to remove all

of our cushioned furniture to prevent users from stashing in it. It felt like our structure had once

been a place of service, to a place of discipline, and this was not what baristas had signed up for

when they applied at the coffee chain.

Course of Action Recommendation

I think Starbucks is correct to use the machine bureaucracy structure given the nature of

our fast-food business, however I would have admired a more divisionalized structure when

dealing with serious issues such as this. Chapter four of Reframing Organizations shares that in

divisionalized structures, duties are equally divided amongst four groups which are functionally

sound, with upper management working with these divisions, providing a sense of synergy and

stability. They did require us to attend meetings discussing how to handle problems in high crime

areas and educated us on what to do in these situations. However, they were addressing the

symptoms of this problem rather than addressing the source. I believe that adaptive leadership

should have been used by both my store manager and district manager, to allow them to realize

that they needed to adapt to our store’s different needs, and tackle the problem with the help of

authority. For a company that invests so much in its partners, I felt very betrayed and
PCA STRUCTURE 4

disappointed after this incident and its handling. To me, I did not understand what would finally

qualify us for an in-store police officer. It seemed like we were just expected to learn to deal with

these situations. There was a Chipotle a mile away from us that had an in-store officer, and they

never had loitered or homeless people using their facilities without making purchases. Because

of the authoritative presence, any problems that did happen never escalated, and the employees

always felt safe. I would have created an alternative path by leveraging my power as a shift

supervisor, creating a coalition with my team, and enforcing an in-store officer as this would be

the only truly effective way to prevent loiters from overdosing again in our facilities. I believe if

my district manager and store manager had used adaptive leadership to recognize that structural

change was necessary, we could have achieved a healthy solution. By adapting, they could have

recognized that while the machine bureaucracy structure served us well in getting customers in

and out quickly, it was not a healthy structure to keep when life and death situations were taking

place. Adapting to a divisionalized structure would have been healthier for all parties involved,

and inspired others to make changes when necessary.

Do Different Reflection

Before the overdose resulting in a death, there were numerous overdoses in our store bathroom.

This was a problem that could have been prevented had we used a divisionalized structure and

followed adaptive leadership. What I advocated for was an in-store police officer. If we had an

in-store police officer, we would not have had people using our café as a hotel, and our bathroom

as a place to overdose in. People using our facilities would be paying customers. No longer

would our tip jars be stolen, customers would no longer be mugged, and partners would not be

followed home at night if an officer were present. In addition, having a store police officer would

have alleviated the stresses that we baristas were experiencing. Rather than continuing to expect
PCA STRUCTURE 5

us to do all that our jobs entitled, we were required to attend meetings on how to deal with these

high crime area situations, how to keep ourselves and customers safe, and how to administer

Narcan. I believe all of these practices were beneficial but disappointing that we were

responsible for these tasks that we didn’t sign up for when we applied. I am proud of our

company and for taking action in how they handled recent incidents. After the incident in

Philadelphia, Starbucks provided racial bias training to over 800 stores. Starbucks practices level

5 leadership and servitude by providing benefits to part time partners like myself. Howard

Schultz once stated that it is cheaper to provide benefits to one long lasting employee than it is to

continuously hire and train due to a high turnover rate. I wish that Starbucks had practiced this

mindset in our unique situation. My district manager claimed that an in-store cop was a costly

and complicated process and my store’s sales did not amount to the worth. I argued to her that if

we had an in-store police officer, crime would go down, loitering would go down, bringing in

more customers who would finally be comfortable in our café, who in turn would raise our sales.

By addressing the problem rather than the symptoms, we could redefine our store as a whole and

truly live out our company mission.

PCA STRUCTURE 6

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership

(6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (Perusall Version Only)