Creating Community: Did Johnson use Starbucks’ shared values as the cornerstone of his decision making after the arrests?
Yes, he did use Starbucks’ values as the basis of his decision making after the arrest incident of two black men. After the incident, he released a statement restating that every person can use the facilities at Starbucks without having to make a purchase. Moreover, Johnson reiterated that the main aim of Starbucks is to create a culture of belonging, a culture in which every person is welcome without any limitation.
Did his decision to close all Starbucks stores for unconscious bias training and to create a new “Third Space Policy” align with Starbucks’ mission and goals?
Yes, Johnson’s decision aligned with the firm’s mission and goals. The company is committed to creating a culture of belonging and every person is welcome. I think the closure of business was vital since it gave the firm’s management a chance of integrating this purpose to its staff. Besides, the resolution of closing down the business was a move of feeling sorry hence an increased likelihood of customers to comprehend what transpired.
Did his handling of the incident promote positive relationships between employees and customers? Did it encourage a sense of connectedness and shared values?
Yes, his handling of the incident promoted a positive relationship between customers and employees. Before the incident, Starbucks had no policy appealing to customers to leave, in case of any occurrence, and leave the acumen to the store manager. Nonetheless, after the incident, the company revolved that every person is permitted to operate at the firm. Moreover, the environment at Starbucks was made safe and welcoming for everyone. A safe and welcoming environment is characterized by connectedness and shared values.
Question 2
Encouraging Ethical Conduct: Did Johnson openly acknowledge that his decision was based on ethics and morality?
No, he did not openly acknowledge that his resolution was grounded in ethics and morality. Johnson remarked that it was quite difficult to watch the video as the video failed to represent the company’s mission and values. Concerning that, an involving environment was created and every individual was to operate within the company without having to make a purchase.
Did his apology and actions promote awareness of an ethical issue?
Yes, Johnson’s apology advocated for awareness of that matter. After the incident, he confessed that the acts did not represent the firm’s mission and values after which a welcoming environment was created and everyone was to operate within the company without having to buy anything. In his apology, Johnson focused mainly on action and alert.
Did it create a positive or negative difference in the communities Starbucks serves?
The proclamation of disillusionment created a positive difference in the communities. After the pouring of dismay, Johnson met with two persons who got captured, discovering that the contemplation was fully made. And the association of the amalgamation proposed change.
Did it make a positive or negative difference for Starbucks employees and customers?
Yes, it made a positive difference for Starbucks customers and employees. For customers, a welcoming, nurturing, and inspiring environment was created where an individual can take some tea and still take a rest without any restrictions. For employees, they had a chance of receiving “unconscious bias training”.
Question 3
Showing Discipline in One’s Role: Does Johnson explicitly accept responsibility for the incident and provide direction for a course correction?
Remarkably, Yes. Johnson precisely accepted the liability of the incident. Skeet, 2017 alludes that good leaders undertake the responsibility of a fallacy upon recognizing an interest in conflict. Following the occurrence of the incident, he took the responsibility of actions involving employees fully. Nonetheless, I can also remark that Johnson failed to take responsibility as a result of the firing of the manager responsible for arrest the following day.
Does he identify ways to collaborate with others when necessary?
Johnson took full responsibility for actions involving the staff after the incident. Nonetheless, I can remark that he also failed to take entire responsibility following the firing of the manager for the arrest. Johnson further remarked that the employees were not adequately trained meaning the manager had the full potential and knowledge to handle customers.
Does he show he understands what his role is in fixing this problem?
I can say that Johnson comprehends what his role is in fixing the problem by providing a direction for the course of action. Moreover, in his apology, he depicted the investigations that Starbucks will take. Also, he stipulated the actionable procedures to be taken.
Question 4
Clarifying Culture: Did Johnson clarify his values and the company’s values in his apology and with his subsequent actions?
Yes, Johnson did clarify his values and the company’s values in his apology with his subsequent actions. He took the issue seriously and put all his power to try and fix the issue as soon as possible. He took immediate action by quickly apologized and took full responsibility by creating an environment of belonging in which every person could operate in the company without having to necessarily make a purchase.
Did Johnson’s apology and follow-up actions uphold Starbucks’ mission and core values?
Yes, Johnson’s apology as well as follow-up actions upheld the firm’s mission and core value as well. Noticeably, Johnson’s apology assisted the employees at Starbucks in figuring out if their values aligned with the company values. According to Starbuck’s website, the firm’s values include; acting with courage, creating a culture of belonging, connecting with respect, dignity, and respect, and lastly holding ourselves accountable for the outcomes.
Did he identify gaps between stated and actual values?
Yes, Johnson identified the gaps between stated and actual values. Besides, he noted that insufficient training resulted in the uncouth behavior that was demonstrated, hence the need to subject the employees into proper training.
Did Johnson’s apology help Starbucks employees figure out if their values align with the company’s?
Yes, Johnson’s apology greatly assisted employees at Starbucks to puzzle out whether their values aligned with those of the firm. Besides, the workers accepted to receive unconscious bias training on the real value of the firm. Again, they were in a position to serve the clients equally.
Question 5
Designing Ethical Systems: Did Johnson’s actions have an impact beyond Starbucks?
I think Johnson’s actions have an impact beyond the company. To start with, his apology is meant to serve as an epitome to other companies whose workers involve themselves in uncouth behaviors. In that regard, top management in any organization should learn to take full responsibility when their employees have committed any form of crime. Moreover, firms should learn the art of initiating mechanisms in pursuit of bettering the current situation. Again, it is advisable to subject the employees to extensive training more so if the current training is not sufficient.
Did they send a precedent for other companies to follow?
Yes, I think that they did send a precedent for other firms to follow. The published statements as well as the follow up videos can be accessed easily and used by other firms.
Did his apology create a conversation about unconscious bias in the workplace?
Yes, Johnson’s apology created a conversation concerning unconscious bias in the company. This is precisely illustrated by the decision of the firm to take up unconscious bias training for its employees.
How do his apology and the subsequent follow-up actions compare to other companies and CEOs that have faced similar problems?
I think that Johnson’s apology was direct. The reason behind my reasoning is that Johnson accepted to take entire responsibility after the incident, a very rare happening among most CEOs who believe that someone should be answerable. Moreover, Johnson did not take the action to be neither discriminatory nor full of racism.