Work life balance is a global phenomenon that lacks awareness and visibility.

There isn’t

just one simple fix to remedy this entire issue. Starbucks is a business that is run for profit.

Decisions are made that benefit only stakeholders, CEOs, and higher ups. These decisions have

chain reactions that affect lower-level employees. Any change in leadership also changes the

direction in which a company is going. Sometimes that can be a good thing, but sometimes it

causes strain and distress to the workflow that currently exists. There has been a long history of

work life balance issues concerning management positions at Starbucks. Retail Management is

burdened with having to carry the load whenever issues arise in the workplace. The workforce

in the US has embedded its expectation in leaders to go the extra mile at all costs. This often

leaves managers feeling depleted and leads to burnout. Researchers have investigated solutions

to better manage work-life balance (Todd & Binns 2013). Perhaps, the best solution is an

organizational overhaul in which the following priorities are emphasized: a culture of caring for

its employees, flexible scheduling, retention in talent management, career progression and

performance compensation. The logic behind this idea is that if the foundation of the

organization is healthy then the employees will reap the benefits. Investing in people gives

employees a sense of purpose and pride in being a part of something bigger which improves

wellbeing in life and in turn increases productivity at work (Bloom & Van Reenan 2006).

Starbucks coffee company expects operational excellence driven through the lens of

humanity. The company understands that humanity is what drives connections with customers.

Humanity also creates a culture of caring for its employees. As a company they value the power

of human connection and are passionate about the crafting of quality beverages. However, this

successful company has created a demand and culture of productivity that contributes to the
lack of work-life balance that continues to put strain on its managers (Todd & Binns 2013). If the

same care for connection could be placed towards employees, there would be more internal

motivation to support Starbuck’s financial mission. The issue stems from the butterfly effect of

cutthroat decision making, budget cuts and changes in leadership. Collectively these reasons

continue the cycle of struggling to find work life balance at Starbucks. These progressive

changes undermine valuing employees. It is a difficult balance for a company because at the

end of the day, it is a business. It’s important to note that an investment in the wellbeing of

employees will result in a positive return.

The main problem with finding work-life balance at Starbucks is that it is directly tied to

others. The system itself is set up in such a way that if anything goes wrong it is the manager’s

job to slide in and handle the issue. In 2010 Starbucks altered staffing and scheduling practices

to compress work weeks. Employees worked longer shifts and had an additional day off which

created flexibility in scheduling (Hinkin and Tracey 2010). This implemented solution only served

as a temporary band-aid due to the physical complexities of working long hours. Starbucks has

always given autonomy to its management so that they can be best equipped to problem solve

the business they run. A more streamlined approach to flexibility in scheduling would close gaps

in this process.

A potential solution to this ongoing issue would be to place an emphasis on career

progression so that top tier talent can support employees on all levels. Currently the assistant

store manager’s position is a segway to becoming a store manager, if this position was not short

term this manager could then be an additional support whenever necessary. Retention in these

positions has the potential to eliminate work-life balance issues caused by high turnover. The
only foreseeable drawback to this solution is a financial concern of maintaining two salaried

positions long term.

A contrasting point that can be made is to say that Starbucks does prioritize work life

balance by allowing employees to use paid time off. Starbucks has a reputation for offering

comprehensive and competitive benefits (Davolt 2006). This has always been an incentive to

work in this retail industry, but it is not as simple as having time and taking time. In

management roles there is added strain placed on another manager when one wants to take

time off. The workload shifts, it doesn’t disappear.

Lastly, work-life balance is currently addressed by using benefits directly linked to the

betterment of one’s mental health. As a Starbucks employee one has access to a variety of

mindfulness apps including Headspace (Hinkin and Tracey 2010). Starbucks encourages its

employees to maintain mental wellness by using these apps, so that we feel supported

professionally and personally. A drawback to this solution is that the resources do not provide

actual balance to one’s workload. These are tools to be used when stressors become too much.

While they help relieve stress these programs do not make a difference in fixing the main issue.

Are these proposed solutions feasible? The steps needed to achieve true work life

balance may seem too institutional to attack. The solution is to start small. Prioritize people

over profit! The way in which companies carry out their goals and objectives need to change.

Balance in life is critical to maintaining one’s well-being and managing life’s stressors. How can

companies move away from being driven by results and create a culture of care (Todd & Binns

2013).
 References

BLOOM, & VAN REENEN, J. (2006). Management Practices, Work—Life Balance, and
Productivity: A Review of Some Recent Evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(4), 457–
482. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grj027
Davolt, S. (2006). Reduced-load scheduling: Lightening workload heightens job satisfaction,
productivity. Employee Benefit News, 1-19. http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?
url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/reduced-load-scheduling-lightening-workload/
docview/214844128/se-2
Hinkin, Timothy R., and J. Bruce Tracey. “What Makes It So Great? An Analysis of Human
Resources Practices Among Fortune’s Best Companies to Work For.” Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2010, pp. 158–70, https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965510362487.
Martin. (1995). Working part time pays off at Starbucks Coffee. Business Insurance, 29 pg. 13
Todd, & Binns, J. (2013). Work-life Balance: Is it Now a Problem for Management? WORK-LIFE
BALANCE: A PROBLEM FOR MANAGEMENT? Gender, Work, and Organization, 20(3), 219–231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00564.x
Zollars, Poirier, T. I., & Pailden, J. (2019). Effects of mindfulness meditation on mindfulness,
mental well-being, and perceived stress. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 11(10),
1022–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.06.005
Self-Assessment
In considering my first draft I feel it addresses all key points of the rubric. I feel this draft is
lacking use of direct quotes or added statistics to strengthen the points I’ve made. While I used
sources, I didn’t pull direct quotes from my sources to place in my body paragraphs. At first, I
struggled with developing structure and flow, but after a few reviews I feel that I did a good job
of ironing out the awkward way of stating the obvious. I avoided using phrasing that was too
literal such as “counterarguments, solution to” or anything that took away from keeping the
writing reader centered. Sometimes I can be a bit wordy with my style of writing and I wanted
to actively work on that. While this draft isn’t my worst, I know there is always room for
improvement. What could be added to make this draft more intentional? Does the Advocacy Ad
I included tell the story? Should I change my PSA to a video media so that I could deliver a more
effective message?