Leadership, Communication, and Organizational Culture Analysis

Leadership Influence: The Case of John Moore and Starbucks

Former Starbucks marketing executive John Moore is a leader who is particularly interesting because of how effectively he worked alongside the strong personality of Howard Schultz. Moore once observed, "Food is something they've been trying to solve for 20 years. The stores are set up as places to brew and serve coffee, and they don't have a back of the house suitable for the prep work and other work that goes into serving high-end pastries like these well." Moore uses his expertise in the retail food industry to exert influence on the trajectory of the company, taking Starbucks in directions that many insiders would never have imagined. Although Moore is not in the foreground in the same manner as Howard Schultz — who is practically a household name — he is a charismatic individual. He is easy to talk to, quick to praise, and a risk-taker who owns failure rather than looking for someone to blame when his ideas don't pan out as intended.

Moore, who later became COO of the marketing consulting firm Brains on Fire, explained that Starbucks had long struggled to achieve success with brands — especially prepared food items or packaged beverages — that were not Starbucks-branded products. Moore championed the idea of Tazo teas and was prepared to navigate the challenges of promoting a product that would always occupy a secondary position relative to Starbucks coffee. He recognized that Tazo could be marketed to consumers who were drawn to the Starbucks "Third Place" environment but were not necessarily interested in coffee. Tazo was an early acquisition that was never removed from the product lineup, largely because Moore served as its champion. He always executed his influence in a gentle, almost organic manner — one that allowed him to do more than most to change the face of Starbucks, mostly because others didn't notice the trajectory until Moore had already led them well along the path. As Moore put it, Tazo teas "became a $1 billion brand almost in spite of Starbucks."

Perhaps Tazo survived because it benefited from the constant flow of products entering and exiting the particular niche that is Starbucks. To consumers in a Starbucks store — whether online or in a brick-and-mortar location — Tazo was seen as just another product; it had not yet achieved true brand status. Steve Smith, one of the founders of Tazo, captured the dynamic well:

"I have the utmost respect for Howard Schultz, who told me when we first started putting our products on their shelves, 'Don't let us get our fingerprints all over your brand.' We had to fight to get displayed on the back of an étagère, and sometimes we even got front and center. But there was this constant tension between coffee and tea and merchandise and ready-to-eat, with everyone managing those categories vying to be the next featured item in the store so they could demonstrate that they could grow their business."

Workplace Communication Breakdown and Barriers

People generally respond to different influence tactics in varying ways. Formal authority tends to produce compliance but not necessarily commitment. Expertise, as Moore demonstrates, can generate genuine respect and willingness to follow, particularly when the expert has a proven track record. Rewards motivate behavior but can lose their effect if they are perceived as inequitable. Coercion typically produces resentment and minimum compliance. Charisma, when authentic, is perhaps the most powerful influence tactic, as it inspires voluntary commitment and loyalty — qualities that Moore clearly cultivated throughout his career at Starbucks.

Human resources at my company conducts many approaches to managing and sharing HR responsibilities. For instance, the company routinely provides orientation training to newly hired employees as part of the onboarding process. However, the nature of human resources is inherently bureaucratic, and legal considerations make it important to adhere to rigid processes and strategies for dealing with people. This means that communication is not free-flowing, and it also means communication can go seriously awry — HR personnel may be more focused on avoiding statements that could spin out of control rather than getting to the heart of the matter.

In the situation I will describe, the sender of the communication was my peer, and both the HR assistant and I were receivers. The communication concerned a request for additional support and training. My peer had a slight speech impediment and wanted to request access to various training programs. The company offered a considerable range of training opportunities, including: (1) basic skills training in all information systems integral to the firm; (2) team training to smooth interactions within global teams, where diverse cultures and multiple languages can lead to miscommunication; (3) career development support for employees with five or more years of tenure; (4) e-training to accommodate international time zones and varied schedules; (5) a mentoring program that has been launched and re-launched over several years — valued by both mentees and mentors but difficult to sustain; and (6) a formal coaching program focused on succession planning for top-level executives.

My peer had approached the HR assistant to request mentoring and coaching, telling me he hoped this training would help him overcome his hesitancy to speak up at meetings and when working on accounts. It is important to note that the coaching program was generally tied to an informal promotion plan and was intended to help executives identify and groom potential successors. From the HR assistant's perspective, my peer's request was inappropriate because he was not at the executive level, though he clearly aspired to be. As a middle manager, he had a long way to go and was pinning his hopes on the focused attention that an experienced mentor or coach could provide.

The first meeting he attended with the HR assistant did not go well at all. The assistant was dismissive and, while she did not say so explicitly, she intimated that he would not be successful in climbing the corporate ladder because of his speech impediment. My peer then asked me to attend a second meeting he requested with the HR assistant. His idea was that I could direct the conversation in a more productive direction and that my presence would discourage the assistant from going down the same path again.

I came to the meeting with written notes and explicit questions for both my peer and me to ask. I explained to the HR assistant that I was personally interested in the same training, making the discussion directly relevant to me and thus justifying my presence. In addition to using written questions — and writing down her answers — I employed active listening, repeating her comments to confirm my understanding before writing them down. I also suggested two follow-up meetings to serve as checkpoints for ensuring that progress was being made on both my peer's requests and my own.