30 ms·

Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you get increas

by l33tbro 12y ago

Nothing fuzzy here. It is an extremely well-calculated ROI move from corporate. Win hearts and minds of the bean-proles on the front lines, and you get increasesed productivity via an enhanced sense of belongining.

logn 12y ago
That's true. Public companies have an obligation to not waste money. But it's still admirable because they've attempted to find ways that altruism and respect can further their profits, when they didn't need to. It's kind of like saying there's nothing warm and fuzzy about people doing volunteer work because they ultimately derive self-satisfaction from it.
qq66 12y ago
Culture isn't that easy to fabricate without some level of sincerity throughout the organization. And even if it was, who loses if everyone is happier to belong in the organization?
- l33tbro 12y ago
  Starbucks didn't crawl to the cushier half of the Fortune 500 on a corporate mission statement of "chill vibes". Would of made them has-beans (had-beans?) long ago. You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the profit-motive. I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this is happening.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    You seem to suggest that "all parties winning" is a random, unintended by-product of the process being ultimately profit-driven (which apparently is nefarious). This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value proposition is one of win/win/win.
    - moe 12y ago
      vast majority ... win/win/win Vast majority, really? Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.
      - mseebach 12y ago
        It's important to get terminology right: It's "win" as in "win/win" situation, not "victorious forever". It means "better than the best alternative", not "best". Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In that case, he "wins". Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win". And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid, low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins". This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a "win" for more people.
tim333 12y ago
I rather doubt it's a calculated ROI move. I did calculating ROI for my CFA exams and I doubt that would fly. I suspect weirdly enough they are trying to do good.

by l33tbro 12y ago

logn 12y ago

That's true. Public companies have an obligation to not waste money. But it's still admirable because they've attempted to find ways that altruism and respect can further their profits, when they didn't need to. It's kind of like saying there's nothing warm and fuzzy about people doing volunteer work because they ultimately derive self-satisfaction from it.

qq66 12y ago

Culture isn't that easy to fabricate without some level of sincerity throughout the organization. And even if it was, who loses if everyone is happier to belong in the organization?

l33tbro 12y ago
Starbucks didn't crawl to the cushier half of the Fortune 500 on a corporate mission statement of "chill vibes". Would of made them has-beans (had-beans?) long ago. You're right in that all parties win. But we would be all joshing ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the muse beckoning to the boardroom here was the profit-motive. I'm not doubting their were some well-intentioned individuals involved in this initiative - hats off to them. Just saying let's be realistic about why this is happening.
- mseebach 12y ago
  You seem to suggest that "all parties winning" is a random, unintended by-product of the process being ultimately profit-driven (which apparently is nefarious). This is false. While there may well exist exploitation, the vast majority of successful businesses, especially those that are successful on the longer term, were and are successful because their profit/employee/customer value proposition is one of win/win/win.
  - moe 12y ago
    vast majority ... win/win/win Vast majority, really? Call me a cynic but win/lose/win seems a lot more common to me.
    - mseebach 12y ago
      It's important to get terminology right: It's "win" as in "win/win" situation, not "victorious forever". It means "better than the best alternative", not "best". Is spending $8 on a milky Starbucks coffee a better value for the customer than the immediate alternatives to spending it, including not spending it? In that case, he "wins". Is keeping the capital invested in the assets that make up Starbucks a better value for the investors than not? Then the owners "win". And is taking a job at Starbucks a better deal than taking any alternative job available? It seems a whole lot more pleasant to me than most other low-paid, low-skilled jobs I can think of. If so, the employee "wins". This education effort will likely make a Starbucks job even more attractive than the alternatives, for rather little money, making working at Starbucks a "win" for more people.

tim333 12y ago

I rather doubt it's a calculated ROI move. I did calculating ROI for my CFA exams and I doubt that would fly. I suspect weirdly enough they are trying to do good.