After Reviewing The Required Readings And Case, Select A S ✓ Solved

After reviewing the required readings and case, select a s

After reviewing the required readings and case, select a specific organization and write a 3-page paper addressing the following areas: What organizational development activities did you witness? Describe organizational learning mechanisms used in the organization. Did the organization specifically train individuals on the IT systems to support the processes of the organization? Did some individuals display personal factors that deterred them from learning? Did any parts of the organization display issues that deterred learning?

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper analyzes organizational development (OD) activities and organizational learning processes observed at Starbucks Coffee Company. Drawing on the required readings and organizational learning literature, the paper describes OD activities, identifies learning mechanisms used, evaluates IT training for business processes, and examines personal and organizational barriers to learning. The goal is to synthesize theoretical perspectives with observable practices and offer concise recommendations.

Organizational Development Activities Observed

Starbucks deploys a range of OD activities aimed at aligning people, processes, and technology. These include formalized onboarding programs for new partners (employees), leadership development tracks for store managers, continuous process improvement initiatives (e.g., standard operating procedures for beverage preparation and quality control), and large-scale change programs associated with digital ordering and store redesigns (Blau et al., 2008). Corporate investments in culture-building (mission, values, and partner engagement surveys) and periodic restructuring of regional management to improve responsiveness are further OD activities intended to enhance organizational capabilities and process performance (Senge, 1990; Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Organizational Learning Mechanisms

Starbucks employs a mix of formal and informal learning mechanisms that align with the categories identified by Clifford and Thorpe (2007): formal training (classroom and e-learning), on-the-job learning (coaching and peer demonstration), mentoring, and community-based knowledge sharing (store-level communities of practice). New partners complete standardized barista training that combines face-to-face practice with e-learning modules; store managers receive managerial and operational workshops; and best-practice videos and playbooks are distributed to maintain consistency (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Knowledge transfer is supported by technology-enabled knowledge repositories and social platforms where partners share tips and troubleshoot process issues, reflecting knowledge management practices (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Tacit knowledge (craft of beverage making, customer rapport) is transferred via shadowing and coaching, while explicit knowledge (recipes, POS protocols) is codified in manuals and digital guides (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Argyris & Schön, 1978).

IT-System Training to Support Processes

Starbucks has notably integrated IT systems—point-of-sale (POS) terminals, mobile ordering, and inventory analytics—into frontline processes. The company provides targeted IT training through a combination of in-store hands-on sessions, online tutorials, and staged rollouts with superuser support. Formal training ensures partners can operate the POS, manage mobile orders, and use inventory dashboards. Additionally, Starbucks uses pilot stores and train-the-trainer models to scale IT adoption while monitoring process impacts (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Senge, 1990).

Individual-Level Factors that Deter Learning

Despite robust programs, individual factors can impede learning. Some partners exhibit low motivation or see training as irrelevant to their immediate tasks—consistent with Ng et al. (2006), who link perceived opportunity and communication to learning uptake. Fixed mindsets, workload stress, and competing priorities (e.g., peak service demands) reduce time available for reflective practice and follow-up training. Personality factors or low self-efficacy may make some employees resistant to new IT systems or procedural changes (Orpen, 1997; Ng et al., 2006). Mentoring and positive reinforcement mitigate some resistance, but variability in individual learning readiness remains a challenge.

Organizational Issues that Deter Learning

Structural and cultural issues also constrain learning. Store-level silos and regional variability in management support can create uneven implementation of OD initiatives, echoing Alderfer and Smith’s (1982) observations on intergroup relations that can foster subgroups resistant to centralized change. Identity and socialization effects (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) may cause partners to cling to localized practices that conflict with corporate standards, slowing standardization. Time pressure during busy service hours limits opportunities for reflective learning and double-loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Inadequate feedback channels or poorly timed IT rollouts can exacerbate confusion and create temporary declines in performance.

Integration of Theory and Practice

The observed Starbucks practices illustrate how a blend of formal education, experiential learning, and knowledge management supports process learning (Clifford & Thorpe, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). However, theoretical models highlight persistent friction points: individual motivation and intergroup dynamics (Ng et al., 2006; Alderfer & Smith, 1982). Senge’s (1990) concept of the learning organization suggests Starbucks benefits from systems thinking and shared vision but must continuously address structural barriers to sustain learning across units.

Recommendations

To strengthen organizational learning and mitigate barriers, Starbucks (and similar firms) should: 1) align OD and professional development by connecting training outcomes to career paths and incentives (Blau et al., 2008); 2) schedule protected learning time to reduce on-shift training conflicts (Ng et al., 2006); 3) expand peer-coaching networks and cross-store exchanges to break silos (Alderfer & Smith, 1982); 4) deploy phased IT rollouts with dedicated superusers and iterative feedback loops to enable rapid course correction (Davenport & Prusak, 1998); and 5) measure learning outcomes, not just completion, to reinforce continuous improvement (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Conclusion

Starbucks demonstrates a comprehensive set of OD activities and learning mechanisms that support business processes, including explicit IT-system training and diverse knowledge-sharing methods. Nevertheless, individual motivation, workload pressures, and organizational silos can impede learning. Addressing these barriers requires an integrated approach that links development activities to incentives, protects time for learning, leverages communities of practice, and uses iterative IT adoption strategies informed by feedback and measurement.

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
  • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
  • Alderfer, C. P., & Smith, K. K. (1982). Studying intergroup relations embedded in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 35–65.
  • Blau, G., Andersson, L., Davis, K., Daymont, T., Hochner, A., Koziara, K., & Holladay, B. (2008). The relation between employee organizational and professional development activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 1–15.
  • Clifford, J., & Thorpe, S. (2007). More ways than one: Exploring the use of different learning methods in organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 267–275.
  • Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1–22.
  • Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53–60.
  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency.
  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.

Related Assignments