Part One&Two 2
Starbucks and Whole Foods are two establishments I patronize often, so when an assignment such as this presents itself, I quickly began to ponder about both of these companies. Besides the essential components of having at least a twenty year history and being publicly traded, I examined the leadership structure of these companies, their corporate/social responsibility impact, and product quality. With all things, especially things that are good, I couldn't neglect incorporating criticisms and controversies that has also been associated with these companies before choosing Whole Foods as my company for the final project.
Over the years, I have grown increasingly aware of my surroundings and environment, therefore the aforementioned factors are extremely important when considering either working for an employer or patronizing their establishment. Understanding this has helped me to become a sharper consumer spender so these factors again are highly regarded in my lifestyle. One of the main contributing factors of determining Whole Foods for this assignment was it's leadership structure.
In 2010, Starbucks announced a new corporate structure to accelerate it's global growth through the execution of their multi-brand and multi-channel strategies. Under the new leadership and organizational move, the company will transition to a new three-region organizational structure that is hopeful to produce optimization and speed going forward. In each region, a president is appointed and they all will report to Howard Schultz, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Starbucks Coffee Company ("Starbucks announces new," July). Although this expansion is sure to help add on to the building momentum of the company, I think the organizational structure is typical of many successful companies. I wanted to examine a company that has garnered success with more of an unorthodox structure and Whole Foods is it.
For the past ten years,...