Belonging, ethics, Starbucks - and what you say 'No' to


What would you say no to?

It's a great question to ask if you want to see how ethical your culture is.
 
How does this play at Starbucks?



I'm sitting in Starbucks in Covent Garden. My first time in a Starbucks for some time. Partly I wanted a cup for the photo above. And, in the interests of fairness, to experience a company I've tended to avoid.



Starbucks seemed to say 'No' to taxes for quite a while, had some bad press suggesting it was grumpy it couldn't quite say 'No' to homeless people hanging around a branch nursing one cup of tea all day, and recently said 'No' (pretty soon after saying 'Yes') to its rather blighted #racetogether campaign.



But last week it said 'No' in a way that may have brought it more of an ethical glow in a few minutes' exchange at a shareholder meeting than in the previous ten years.



At Starbucks' annual general meeting in Seattle last week a shareholder was disgruntled that the company had lost value because of its overt stance supporting gay marriage. 

The far-right Christian lobby had organised a boycott of Starbucks which apparently affected sales. The shareholder was identified by Huffington Post as Tom Strobhar, founder of anti-gay-marriage pressure group Corporate Morality Action Centre.



Without blinking, CEO Howard Schultz responded with

“Not every decision is an economic decision... I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months.

Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds.”

And then, the clear-cut 'no':
 

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country.
You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.
Thank you very much.”

The audience rose in cheers and applause.



From the rough film clips on news sites and YouTube it seems this was an on the spur response to an impromptu question. Though sometimes canny investor relations teams have an idea of the issues that may be raised by activist investors, this seems the real McCoy: a moral stand by a leader with conviction. 

It's a straightforward rejection of the investor, his ethics, and his cash.
 
If you don't share our values, then don't question our value: We don't want your money.

Howard Shultz has taken a stand behind what the company believes in. Belonging to Starbucks - as an employee or as an investor - means ensuring everybody can belong on an equal-footing. And if you don't believe in that, then you don't belong.
 

Purpose over profit? It's both, of course.
More importantly: ethos.


And that's the heart of belonging, at the heart of business.



It'll be interesting to see if any other big corporations are prepared to say no, quite so openly, to defend what they believe in.



Maybe we're beginning to nurture early seedlings of a new capitalism.


How would that feel to belong to?
 
So, what would you say 'no' to? 

And, in your organisation, would your CEO stand up boldly for what you all belong to?



At Belonging Space we help organisations put ethos and purpose at the heart of their business, and create a sense of belonging.

isabel@belongingspace.com


www.belongingspace.com

Freedom to speak up: candour leads to commitment, much more powerful than compliance

"I have been so depressed by this experience that I have often considered suicide.... I have lost all faith in the NHS and the employment tribunal system"

One of the witnesses quoted in Sir Robert Francis' review of NHS culture, the Freedom To Speak Up Report, published yesterday.

Candour is the foundation of a healthy culture.

The overriding culture of an organisation can be measured in the ease - or tension - of daily conversations.

It's easy for leaders to say "We need a culture of ethics" but hard to do.

To mak it so, a simple code of principles is far more useful than complex rules.

When rules and compliance take over, candour is the first casualty. That’s when ethics starts to go wrong. 

The cultural symptoms are easy to spot. People look over their shoulder, 'doing the right thing' becomes 'doing what I'm told and not thinking for myself'. Blame, control, fear take over. Inertia sets in. People are suspicious, the maverick voice is isolated, a mania of Cc-ing emails.

In a culture of principles rather than rules, something different happens. Within a shared belief of what we stand for, it's easier to open up. People feel permission to ask the tricky questions, confident that this is helpful not risky.

Candour comes when it is demonstrated to be safe and open, that sensitive matters can still be discussed in a common sense way. It's ordinary, everyday.

Candour becomes normal, part of 'how we do things'.

That’s why values need to be active - not just a list of words on a wall.

In cultures based on rules and regulation candour closes up.

And, as the NHS has seen, this will cause a whole lot more ethical risk than it prevents.

Francis calls for a culture in which

"Speaking up about what worries them is a normal part of everyone's routine"

A culture of principles leads to candour and commitment: compliance leads only to control or censure.

The foundation is the basis of belonging:

- purpose (what we're here for)
and
- ethos (what we stand for).

On top of this, the principles Francis has outlined allow openness and candour to flourish.

This sets the context, so that code of conduct, or policies for specific roles, can be more easily observed.

The new recommendations, which the health minister has committed to takingseriously, include:

• All staff feel safe to raise their concerns
• Leaders to demonstrate that they encourage raising concerns
• Chance for reflection on learning from experiences and how to improve
• Guardians for whistleblowers and those who want to speak up

This is relevant to any organisation, far beyond the specific context of the NHS.

Francis conducted a comprehensive study of experiences across the NHS, getting right to frontline. He stresses the need for informal exchange, early in concerns, rather than reliance on structure and bureaucracy. This resonates with what I've seen in many organisations recovering from regulatory ethical contravention or prosecution.

He acknowledges many examples of great practice and stresses that it's not just whistle blowing or raising issues that matters:

"My review also brought home to me how challenging it can be to receive concerns - issues can be difficult and sensitive to solve"

And of course, like healthcare, ethical prevention is better than cure.

If you have to blow the whistle it's already too late.

That's why freedom to speak up is so critical.

Do you have a culture of candour?

Talk to us about a quick litmus test to check

We help organisations create a culture of ethics and belonging

isabel@belongingspace.com
www.belongingspace.com