Starbucks reviews

Coming into Starbucks to be a Shift Manager (known as Shift Supervisor everywhere but in MA), as an outside hire with tons of general business, customer service and management experience, but no barista or food experience, has been very challenging. First, the baristas resent having to help train someone who they know is just going to turn around and start telling them what to do when they finish the training. And second, your fellow (homegrown) Shift Managers resent you landing the same job as them without "paying your dues" as a barista for a few years. This adds up to a pretty challenging and frustrating environment. You may even find yourself being trained by a barista who applied for and was rejected for the Shift Manager position that YOU got. Needless to say, that creates tension. It's also tough on older employees (definitely for anyone over 40, maybe for those over 30 as well). The large majority of the people you'll be managing are between 20 and 25 years old, and for many of them the only job they've ever had is as a Starbucks barista. This means that, in a lot of cases, employees who have no idea how to act in a professional environment. I guess that every generation thinks that the 'young kids' are rude, but it many cases the culture gap is HUGE. I don't know why it is, but Starbucks seems to be stocked with young employees displaying the sarcastic, in-your-face, snarky, in-my-opinion rude attitude that seems pervasive in today's young people. Obviously, this creates a big challenge in the areas of customer service and relations between colleagues. None of these issues should necessarily keep you from accepting a job at The Bux, but they are issues that both older potential hires and outside hires should be aware of and consider carefully.

...but, how that talent is utilized (or not) is criminal. Make no mistake, Starbucks intentionally hires people who are overqualified, and you will be disappointed by the scope of any role that you take within the SSC. In 2008, most entry-level positions were axed, yet the work still needed to be done. The result is an organization in which individuals are expected to have half a leg in the job below them rather than being stretched into the role above them. There is an incredible amount of compression at the experienced individual contributor and first level manager levels, meaning that it can be difficult to move vertically within the organization. Another byproduct of the lack of entry level roles is that the organization is that, due to a lack of any talent development organization, many roles are hired externally. And due to the competitive job market in Seattle, it is expensive to get external talent, which means that external hires are often paid more than their managers (in recent years). The pay and benefits are terrible, which is partially a reflection of having too little leverage within the organization (ie too many senior people doing junior level work), and partially the result of being a publicly-traded company that emphasizes EPS growth over sharing some of the wealth with the employees. Additionally, benefits for those that work at the SSC mostly mirror those given to baristas, which is nice from a PR standpoint, but ridiculous when you consider the drastic differential in education and experience. I have never received such terrible benefits or little vacation time as I did when I arrived at Starbucks. Furthermore, there is no benefit to being a high performer at Starbucks. The difference in pay between your best performer and your average performer is, at most, 2% per year, given that equity and bonus are not indexed to individual performance. Senior leadership is largely disconnected from the general populace, both physically and mentally. Senior leaders tend to shy away from explaining the rationale for most decisions, and expect employees to follow suit. Senior leaders also fail to empower the organization; I've heard repeatedly from individuals at the director and VP level that they 'can't make decisions', and if you want to learn how to run a business , 'starbucks isnt for you'. The myth of Howard Schultz is alive and well within the company, although most insiders know the truth. Howard never went away when Jim Donald was CEO - Howard was just as involved as he is today. Yet, Howard trumpets the myth of his triumphant return constantly, as though he was the savior of Starbucks. His lack of hubris is impressive, and his treatment of other employees is outright sad. I have seen him yell at countless employees, bringing them to tears and undermining their authority (unjustly) at the drop of a hat. While Howard is an incredible businessman, he is a dictator at heart, and one that poisons the culture of what could be a fantastic organization.