Without going into either the labor or management camp, a
person can viably critique the operation of hierarchy itself in business
organizations. The notion is typically associated with the concentration of
power at “the top,” rather than the relation of middle-level managers to “retail”
managers and their subordinates. Efficiency of power at a corporate
headquarters does not necessarily translate into “downward” efficiency at the
level of middle management. I submit that precisely this efficiency is rather
severely compromised in American business.
“The word hierarchy derives from ancient Gree (hierarchia, literally the ‘rule of a
high priest’) and was first used to describe the heavenly orders of angels and,
more generally, to characterize a stratified order of spiritual or temporal
governance.”[1] The
early focus on the situs of a high priest rather than all priests, and the
heavenly orders rather than the relation between them and the earthly orders
set the tone: the top matters most in a hierarchy. I am guilty in that my
theory of organizational leadership applies exclusively at the top: the
leadership of an organization.
Supervisory management is in my view another animal. Yet it too is important,
and I contend that it is woefully neglected in American business.
Customers, for example, of retail businesses will recognize
the frustration in dealing with not only a rude or stubborn employee—even acting at
odds with a company policy!—but also that employee’s gatekeeping, or outright
refusal to get a supervisor as requested. The sense of entitlement that a
non-supervisory employee may have rivals the sense of importance of a CEO.
Getting to a store manager can nonetheless require a lot of effort and
patience; typically an assistant manager is sent to put out the little brush
fires. Employees may know how to exploit this gap that exists between what the employees
and a store manager are doing, such as by insisting that aggrieved customers
first inform the indolent employee of what will be said to the manager (a
conflict of interest to be sure!).
In short, retail-level managers tend not to be involved
enough where customer-meets-employees; management by walking around is too
easily sidelined by the endless list of things needing to be done behind a
desk. Put another way, I contend that retail management is generally
interpreted as being akin to upper management, rather than something unique.
The situs one or even two levels above non-supervisory employees on the front
line should be actively involved on that line, and the complaint access can be
greatly improved such that customers do not have to depend on problematic
employees for it and spend much time and effort in reaching accountability. Hierarchy is made for
efficient accountability, whereas networks (e.g., organic organizational structures
and flat inter-organizational relationships) may be overrated.[2]
Yet the “lower” half of a company’s hierarchy is, I submit, underutilized and
perhaps even unwittingly compromised in part due to the common association of
hierarchy with “the top.”
Starbucks, for example, has a centralized customer service
number, which can be used to register a complaint against a store employee. The
offended customer may get a gift card for a few free drinks to compensate—and such
compensation, rather than an apology alone, is important—but what about the
distance from the centralized unit at headquarters and the store-level
employee? The unit sends a communication to a regional or district manager, who
in turn is supposed to communicate with the store manager, who in turn is
supposed to have a talk with the employee. Considering the sheer number of
links, and the distance involved, the intended message could be compromised
both intentionally and unintentionally. A district manager, for instance, may
just do enough to make it seem that a real correction has been made. A store
manager might dismiss the charge, as it reflects badly on the store’s management.
Rarely, perhaps, would a store manager tell a shift manager to listen to what
the employee is saying to customers. I also doubt whether the typical complaint
results in any actual and substantive negative consequences for
the employee, especially if attitude is the culprit (which is not likely re-trainable).
For all that Howard Schultz’s CEOship of Starbucks has been
lauded, I have been surprised at the number of times I have witnessed rude,
close-minded behavior of employees at the store level. This is not to say that
good employees have not worked in the stores. My point is rather that in the
company’s hierarchy, the part between the district managers and the store
employees seems weakest. In my booklet Bucking
Starbucks’ Star, I argue that Schultz’s corporate social responsibility
ventures “at the top” do not make up for managerial and employee deficiencies
further “below.” I have never seen a store or even a shift manager “working the
room” in stores to see how the customers were actually served, and such
managers can confront centralized reports of complaints by rationalizing, the customer got free drinks, so there’s no
need for me to take action against the employee. Management as walking
around, even by district managers scheduling time to work along side the crews at the various stores, and in having direct access to complaining customers,
could make a dent in shoring up hierarchy in business organizations where
patching is most needed. Hierarchy can be a good thing, provided it is thought
through in its various, distinct levels.
See: Cases of Unethical Business, Walmart: Bad Management as Unethical, and Bucking Starbucks' Star.
[1]
Niall Ferguson, “In Praise of Hierarchy,” The
Wall Street Journal, January 5-6, 2018.
[2]
Ibid.
