Online Spaces and Third Places: What the Starbucks Rebuild Tells Us About Digital Ministry

Howard Schultz, the former CEO (and ostensible founder) of Starbucks, famously described the coffee chain as a "third place." In his vision, Starbucks was to be a place of communal gathering beyond the home and the workplace, a place to cultivate a sense of warmth, connection, and belonging. For much of its history, Starbucks designed stores aligned to this philosophy.

Large tables. Overstuffed chairs. Handwritten names on paper cups. Even the self-serve counter for milk, cream, and sugar promoted a sense of connection and interaction. Starbucks was a place of conversation and gathering. A place to conduct business or to catch up with friends. A place to read a novel or relax with your co-workers. Starbucks was able to sell its beverages at a premium price point in part because of the inviting amenities of its stores. The brand became an "everyday luxury" not just because of the coffee, but because of the subjective, and even sentimental, experience of lingering within a cafe.

But then in 2009, Starbucks launched its mobile app, beginning a journey away from the third place philosophy. 5 years later, Starbucks implemented order-ahead technology, allowing customers to bypass the line, skip the small talk, and obtain their extravagantly customized beverage from a to-go counter.

As mobile orders became increasingly common, cafes became a place not of conversation but of commerce. Starbucks decreased space for tables and seating, preferring open concepts to comfortable furnishings. Floorplans began to emphasize an efficient online ordering experience over lengthy lingering. Up until recently, the app-based strategy paid off handsomely. Some estimate that the Starbucks app accounts for over 30% of the cafe's orders. Customers pre-load cash into the app, effectively giving Starbucks an interest-free loan. Today, Starbucks boasts over two billion dollars of unused cash from customer app accounts, making the coffee chain a larger banker than most mid-sized American banks.

And then inflation hit. Even the most loyal Starbucks customer began to question the value of an $8 latte. As coffee drinkers balked at the price points, they also grew increasingly agitated at the in-store experience: the lack of seating. Barristas overworked from excessively customized orders. The confusion over how, when, and where to obtain one's beverage.

Same-store sales began to shrink. The stock price declined. Former CEO Howard Shultz lambasted the technological nature of Starbucks' business as an "achilles heel." Today, Starbucks is undertaking a substantial rebuild, guided by the former CEO of Chipotle, as it seeks to create a hybrid of third space community and digital age efficiency. Promising "more personal" cafes, Starbucks will look to rebuild their brand in a way that accommodates both the hurried app user and the relaxed table dweller.

The more I read about the Starbucks rebuild, the more I recognize that the challenges confronting Starbucks are the very same dilemmas confronting today's church.

How and when does an institution accommodate a faster-moving, technology-driven culture? How and when does an institution push back on acceleration and digitization?

How does an institution remain rooted in its foundations and its convictions, even when those convictions are unconventional? How does an institution revisit its foundations and reexamine its convictions?

How does a leader balance financial stewardship of an organization with the commitment towards community and human connection?

The digital transformation of Starbucks’ business is a necessity, as are the church's experiments with digital ministry.

For Starbucks, the digital transformation was about reaching an increasingly mobile, time-strapped coffee drinker. For the church, digital ministry is about equipping people for lives of faithful services, even beyond the walls of the sanctuary. Even though digital experimentation is crucial, both organizations must maintain their distinct characteristics, like nurturing meaningful connections among their communities. Despite the necessity of digital innovation, both institutions must learn to thoughtfully preserve what made them distinctive: the experience of meaningful connection with those gathered around the table.

I never would have thought that today's church shares so much in common with the world's 120th-largest for-profit corporation. But next time I step into a coffee shop to order a cold brew and an iced chai, I won't just be observing the making of the beverage. I'll be looking at how an institution balances change and continuity, velocity and values. As there’s no easy solution to this balancing act, we in the church just might observe something that we can learn from. Starbucks may not get any of it right. Not all of their learnings can or should be imported into the church. But they'll be engaged in a similar thought process to that of the ecclesiastical world. And that’s worth paying attention to.

In the church, we’re called to convene a different kind of table and share a different kind of cup. Still, there's something that we might be able to learn when we reach the bottom of our next cup of coffee.

Why LinkedIn Doesn't Want You to be a Servant Leader

Today I'm going to make the case that the greatest impediment to servant leadership in a digital age isn't TikTok, Instagram, Truth Social, or any of our other usual digital bad-guys. Rather, I'm going to suggest that LinkedIn of all places is the greatest obstacle to the practice of servant leadership in the workplace - particularly among Gen Z and Millennials.

LinkedIn creates a perpetual sense of vocational FOMO, limiting our ability to meaningfuly connect with our present moment contexts. The LinkedIn news feed produces this sense of malaise by cramming our feeds with two types of posts:

• "I'm thrilled to announce that I will be leaving to take a job (that sounds more more meaningful than yours)."

• "I'm beyond excited to announce that I have been promoted (to a rung on the career ladder that you may never attain)."

Exacerbating the FOMO, and arguably the imposter syndrome that these types of posts create, are the platform's endless lists of "relevant jobs," offering the allure of meaning and purpose on the other side of the career search.

This creates a vicious social media cycle:

1. I see my connections getting jobs that seem more meaningful than mine

2. This leads me to apply for more jobs

3. I don't land land those jobs, which heightens my FOMO and imposter syndrome

While LinkedIn's mission of creating opportunity is laudable, it's news feed and jobs app both condition us to expect constant and immediate gratification in our career. This expectation leads us to be dissatisfied and disengaged within our current vocations. And as a consequence, LinkedIn limits the practice of servant leadership.

When purpose and meaning are always one career move away from your current vocational home, service becomes secondary to status. Why seek to serve, and serve first, if you'd be better off working elsewhere? Why empty yourselves for the needs of your current vocational home when you'd be better off "bringing your talents" to someplace else? I've suggested that servant leadership is practiced when we commit to listening to one another's stories and learning one another's values. But to what extent is this conversational depth likely in the transient workplace created by LinkedIn?

Certainly, LinkedIn is not the only impediment to the relational depth required for servant leadership. Just as employees are increasingly disloyal to their employers, corporations have become disinterested in incentivizing long-term service. The median employee tenure at most companies is less than four years. Even the highest paid employees, the chief executives, rarely stay within an organization for more than three or four years. Those switching jobs stand to earn more than those who seek raises within their current institutions. And the recent spree of tech layoffs has shown that investors view job stability as less important than the momentary whims of the stock market.

But in our day to day experience, these macro trends are less palpable than the vocational fidgetiness produced by LinkedIn. 200 million Americans have a LinkedIn profile. 137 million Americans used LinkedIn every day. At this scale, we might forget the words of MLK, who spoke of the accessibility of service in all walks of life:

"Everybody can be great … because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love." -Martin Luther King Jr.

Servant leadership is a practice of prioritizing service amongst everyday realities. It can be practiced in all domains and vocations. A servant leader doesn't need to have the best job in their professional network. But they do need a heart motivated by service, a willingness to bring people together, and the ability (to paraphrase Robert Greenleaf) to make their communities healthier, wiser, freer and more autonomous.

When LinkedIn triggers a tinge of jealousy over a rapid promotion cycle, or sends you a jolt of FOMO about the job prospect that seems just beyond your reach, it doesn't inspire service. It stymies it.

Seek first to serve. Seek not to scroll. The world needs servant leaders in all jobs and vocations, especially the one you find yourself in today.

--

@ryanpanzer is a recovering regular LinkedIn user.

--

Servant Leadership in a Digital Age

Servant Leadership is a trending topic in all forms of organizational life, from churches to universities to non-profits, small businesses to multi-national corporations. Yet as the popularity of servant leadership has increased, its definition has become increasingly ambiguous. What exactly is servant leadership? How is it practiced? And what might it mean in a world of continuous social change and digital acceleration?

Google searches for servant leadership have doubled in the last 14 years.

Robert Greenleaf first coined the term Servant Leadership in a seminal 1970 essay, "The Servant as Leader."

In the essay, Greenleaf writes:

"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature."

Greenleaf's roots were in the corporate world. He worked at AT&T for nearly four decades. Yet despite his work in the telecommunications industry, one wonders how Greenleaf's ideas might have evolved were he working in our contemporary tech-shaped culture. He passed away in 1990 at age 86, leaving a legacy that continues to shape leaders of all vocational and spiritual backgrounds. In this post, we'll explore how the idea (really, the ideal) of servant leadership transfers to a digital age, and what it means to be a servant leader in a time of constant technological acceleration.

We need a new approach to leadership

Acceleration and a drive towards efficiency are the only unifying aspects of all organizational life life today. Digital technologies have expedited the flow of information providing us with an abundance of data while conditioning us to move quickly. As communications dart across our screens we cannot help but feeling a sense of busyness, even a sense of overwhelm and malaise. The same corporate world that gave rise to the concept of servant leadership expects constant availability and its responsiveness, far more than it expected from its laborers in Greenleaf's day. Lean staffing structures and ceaseless digital connectivity are a potent pairing, explaining why organizations see increasingly more of their people affected by exhaustion, burnout, and anxiety.

Indeed, this is a time that requires a new approach to leadership. So many of those who aspire to leadership today do so because they believe the can improve efficiency, increase speed, and crank up outputs. Mark Zuckerberg's "year of efficiency" has become a widely adopted template for doing less with more. If aspiring leaders are successful in this drive towards acceleration, the market will reward them accordingly. Yet in prioritizing these outcomes they exacerbate the anxiety and freneticism that characterize organizational life.

Servant leadership offers an alternative to the hamster wheel of digital age efficiency. While still driving towards a meaningful vision of a world that could-be, a servant leader consciously charts an unconventional path.

Motivation: The Heart of the Servant Leader

Motivation is the most distinctive attribute of the servant leader. Their motivation appears rather backwards when compared to their peers.

The conventional digital age leader thirsts for productivity gains and increased effectiveness. And let's be clear - there's nothing wrong with efficient, high performing organizations. But in servant leadership, any performance indicator is understood to be an output. When servant leaders achieve such ends, they do so by starting from a commitment to service above all else. The servant leader chooses to serve - to serve first. Being a servant leader in a digital age is about prioritizing a mindset of service to one's team members, stakeholders, members, or community. To paraphrase servant leadership guru Ken Blanchard, any profits reaped by the organization are the applause they receive in exchange for quality service.

The heart of servant leadership is this orientation towards making people and communities more complete, more whole.

To identify a servant leader, ask them about the purpose underlying their work. Ask them about their why. If their answer is presented in the metrics of the marketplace or in the terms of the efficiency expert, than they may be a conventional manager. But if they are driven to make a demonstrably positive impact on their surrounding communities, then they might just be on the path towards servant leadership.

Best test: The Outcome of Servant Leadership

As with the conventions of motivation, the conventional metrics of the marketplace are outputs to the servant leader.

While they are likely to be as or more effective than their conventional peers in generating revenue, profit, and growth, they measure their effectiveness over time with a different yardstick. The growth logic of the marketplace is less immediate than the growth of people. The servant leader repeatedly inquires as to the effect their work has on colleagues, customers, suppliers, and members. If their leadership is to be meaningful, their entire network must benefit.

Greenleaf established a test for would-be servant leaders when he wrote:

"The best test [of a servant-leader], and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived?"

Servant leaders can be shrewd negotiators and crafty marketers, powerful executives and commanding authorities. They can be successful capitalists and wealthy investors. Each will employ a unique approach to their exercise of leadership. But what will unite them is a continuous process of reflection into the well-being of their community. The best test of servant leadership is in the betterment of others, for the benefits of servant leadership must be shared.