Discuss the Starbuck incident that occurred in Philadelphia in 2018 and how did the company handle that Crisis?

263 through effective on (Pennsylvania chapter 9: The Importance of Organizational Learning Landscape Strategie Crisis Survey Planning Organizational Management Learning dia during extreme Chapter 4: communication. A Strategic Approach to Crisis Management The Chapter 7: Chapter 9 internal Crisis landscape Taking Chapter 10 ember 10, 2018, from Chapter 9 Report.pdf Action Chapter 3: Chapter 2: Chapter 6: Ethics In When a Forming Crisis Strikes Organizy Sources of the Crisis Manage strains character in The Crisis Organiza- Manage- ment Organiza ilonal Manage Blonal ment Team Strategy ment rwin McGraw-Hill Crises and Writing |and Crises The Landscape the Plan External 3-15 Landscape Chapter 8: Chapter 11: s Benoit tragedy. A Crisis Communications Emerging Trends In Crisis Management in the court of sing Age, 79(44), Learning Objectives bbub over After reading this chapter, each student should be able to: , 20 s changing the 1. Define organizational learning. 2. Differentiate between single and double-loop learning. 3. Identify and describe the five components needed to build a learning organization. 4. Describe the post-crisis learning opportunities that can occur by examining the landscape survey, strategic planning, crisis management, and organizational learning phases of the crisis management framework. 5. Explain what is meant by degrees of success in crisis learning. 6. Identify and describe the barriers to organizational learning. Opening Chapter Case: Crisis Brews at Starbucks - Part 1 Managing a restaurant is not easy. Many stakeholders are invested in the success of the business, but some can pose a potential threat. Employees can be untrustworthy or dishonest, and at their worst, can bleed the company of inventory, cash, and customer goodwill. A customer can post complaints on social media about the food and service they received, an act that can spread negative news far and wide. A vendor can provide266 267 corrections were made instinctively by responding to the current driving conditions in Figure 9.1 - Single-Loop Learning in Fighting a Structure Fire the best way possible based on the established norms of driving. Actual Strategies Used in Underlying Assumptions Used in Fighting a Structure Fire Outcomes in Chronological Orde Learning from a Structure Fire Fighting a Structure Fire in Chronological Order L. Firefighters use an Firefighting is an example of an emergency process that involves single-loop learning Increase or decrease the volume 1. The fire is not suppressed. interior attack with one For instance, in fighting a structure fire, one must determine how much water to use. A of water depending on the size of hose (line). firefighter should increase or decrease the volume of water and adjust the spray pattern the fire. 2. Firefighters add a according to the location and size of the blaze. Also, a minimal amount of water will be 2. The fire is not suppressed Adjust the spray pattern of the second line on the fire. and, instead, escalates. used to extinguish the fire not to cause excessive damage to the property. If possible, water stream: straight stream or 3. Firefighters exit the 3. The fire is suppressed firefighters will enter the structure and attempt fog pattern. structure and utilize a partially, but not sufficiently. to "push" the fire farther away from the building, larger line outside the meaning they will spray the fire with water in the Use as little water as possible so building to extinguish that property damage is direction of an open window or door. This type of the fire. attack extinguishes the fire more quickly and minimized 4. Firefighters add a 4. The fire is extinguished. minimizes property damage but doing so Seek an interior attack on the fire second line on the fire. increases the risk of injury to the firefighter as a first strategy. entering the burning building. If a structure is Open the roof so that smoke can hopelessly consumed by the fire and entry into escape the structure, and the the building is not feasible, then the fire firefighters inside can see better. In this example, single-loop learning takes place as the department will launch a defensive attack known as "surround and drown." In this firefighters learn and adapt to the fire. However, no procedure, the firefighters are positioned outside and aim their hoses onto the fire and Use an exterior (defensive) attack underlying assumptions are changed in the strategies used the structure. In this instance, there is little attempt to save the property, only to only if an interior strategy is not to fight the fire. The assumptions in the left column remain extinguish the fire. working or possible. viable. In the previous example, firefighting principles are the same regardless of the type of structure fire encountered. Any learning that occurs is based on adjustments made along the way. For instance, if the firefighter thinks more water is needed, they will Double-Loop Learning increase the volume by adjusting the hose's nozzle. Alternately, another hose (called a Double-loop learning involves detecting and correcting an error, but there is also a line) may be utilized to supplement the amount of water on the fire. Firefighting change in the basic underlying organizational norms (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Such principles do not change in single-loop learning during a fire, only the decisions learning usually occurs after a process of thoughtful reflection (Kolb, 1984). This type of regarding items such as water volume, pressure, or the type of attack (i.e., interior vs. learning changes the organiza organizational culture and the cognitive arrangement of the exterior). company. "Based on an inquiry or some form of crisis, the organization's view of the Single-loop learning is illustrated in figure 9.1. In this example, an interior attack is world will change and , so, stimulate a shift in beliefs and precautionary norms" (Stead & initiated on a fire, which quickly escalates out of control despite the firefighters' best Smalman, 1999, p. 5). Such a change in beliefs can cause organizational leaders to efforts. They learn from the situation that they must exit the building and use a series of ethink the " It couldn't happen to us" mentality whereby managers feel immune to a more massive lines so that an increased volume of water can be distributed on the fire, (Elliot et al. , 2000 , p . 1 Do, p. 17). As Stead and Smallman point out, this evaluation- thereby extinguishing the blaze. Note that the basic underlying assumptions of firefighting have not changed; hence, it is an example of single-loop learning. In the next rethinking process has come to ome to be known by different terms,including " double-loop section, we employ another example of firefighting to illustrate double-loop learning. Turner & Pidge6 1982), "un-learning" (Smith, 1993), and "cultural readjustment" eon, 1997). When these deeper learning processes are applied to crisis264 "polled or contaminated food products that can cause sickness. All of these are industry. specific examples and are potential crises that can disrupt operations and, in some cases, lead to failure. On April 12, 2018, Starbucks encountered a different kind of stakeholder-induced CISIS at its Rittenhouse Square store in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although there was no physical damage or any human injury, the company suffered an unexpected blow to its reputation but, more importantly, prompted the arrest of two innocent young men who were waiting on a friend inside the store. The crisis stemmed from a Starbucks employee's decision to ask the two men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, to leave the store. Neither Nelson nor Robinson had purchased anything. The men refused, so a store manager called the police, and officers eventually arrested them for trespassing and took them to jail (Joffe, 2018). It is not uncommon for restaurants to deny seating or access to restroom facilities to non-customers. This practice is usually not a concern when it involves only a small percentage of ge of store traffic. Still, Starbucks has developed a reputation as a favorite "hangout," and the growing number of non-customers in some stores had become a problem (Jargon & Feintzeig, 2018a, 2018b). Nonetheless, the optics for Starbucks were not positive. The arrest was captured on social media and immediately went viral. Many accused Starbucks of racial bias and discrimination for initiating the arrests. However, this explanation was inconsistent with the company's professional, progressive, and inclusive philosophy. Ironically, Starbucks had demonstrated a commitment to racial justice and eliminating any bias in their restaurants (Marszalek, 2018). Still, the constant broadcast and the social media reports seemed to tell a different story The public perception of the event evolved into a discourse on race, as some perceived it as an attack on the black community. The Black Lives Matter movement officially condemned the incident as an example of how unfounded fear arises when black males are present in white spaces (Joffe, 2018). Many called for the boycott of Starbucks, and protestors confronted management at the Rittenhouse Square store and demanded that the manager who called the police be fired. This protest resulted in a temporary closure of the restaurant. Indeed, there was trouble brewing at Starbucks. Case Discussion Questions 1. Starbucks is not the only retailer to restrict restroom access to paying customers only. Many retailers follow a similar practice citing security concerns. From a crisis management perspective, how should an establishment protect the safety of its store, customers, and employees if non-customers are allowed access to the restrooms? 2. When should managers call police about customer behavior?less. All of these are in operations and, in some 265 of stakeholder-induced Introduction Ivania. Although there to ered an unexpected domy Although it is common to think of a crisis as a negative event, it provides an opportunity for learning and change in the organization (Brockner & James, 2008; Wang, 2008). A f two innocent young me crisis should have the capacity to shock an organization out of its complacency (Veil & mmed from a Starbucks Sellnow, 2008). New perspectives can be developed that hedge the organization against Donte Robinson, to leave future crisis attacks. The Chinese concept of a crisis views it as both a dangerous ing. The men refused, situation and an opportunity for improving (Borodzicz & van Haperen, 2002). Those who sted them for trespassing do not learn from a crisis may recall the adage that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and thus are likely to be visited by similar crises in the future staurants to deny seam (Elliott, Smith, & McGuinness, 2000) ice is usually not a come Unfortunately, human nature seems to prevent some managers from addressing a Starbucks has developed; crisis before substantial damage has already occurred (Nathan, 2000). When a crisis of non-customers in some ensues, learning from it can be haphazard at best. The research that addresses crisis 18b). Nonetheless, the learning is limited but growing (Broekema, van Kleef, & Steen, 2017) What Is Organizational Learning? went viral. Many accused Organizational learning is the process of detecting and correcting errors (Argyris & rests. However, this Schon, 1978). It seeks to improve the organization's operation by reflecting on past I, progressive, and experiences (Sullivan & Beach, 2012). In the context of crisis management, learning commitment to racial should occur when the organization experiences a crisis. Learning should have both k, 2018), Still, the constant cognitive and action dimensions that promote more effective crisis management ent story. (Broekema et al., 2017). However, learning does not always originate from a crisis because some organizations do not learn effectively. A distinction between single-loop on race, as some and double-loop learning is relevant. Barriers to organizational learning are discussed at ives Matter movement the end of this chapter. nded fear arises when alled for the boycott of Single-Loop Learning enhouse Square store and Single-loop learning refers to detecting and correcting an error without changing basic is protest resulted ina underlying organizational norms (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Suppose you are driving your brewing at Starbucks car in a snowstorm, and you suddenly lose control of your vehicle. You sense your car is now veering left into oncoming traffic. To avoid hitting an oncoming vehicle, you steer the car away from the center lane, but in the process, you sense you are now turning too far to the right and running the risk of going off the road. You set your wheels again, access to paying this time to the left, so that you are back on the road. You are careful not to turn your ce citing security wheels too far to the left lest you head into oncoming traffic again. The process of should an steering to the right and then to the left is an example of single-loop learning. The ers, and employees it havior