What possible negative repercussions can the aggressive growth strategy that Starbucks exhibits have on its leadership agenda?
Answers
Explanation:
Most publicly traded companies have an aggressive growth strategy. The strategy isn’t the problem - it is how the strategy is implemented and at what costs. Do they stretch their labor pool too thin? Do they make poor real estate decisions because they over-prioritize growth over other factors?
Wanting growth quickly is not bad, it is often expected of investors and shareholders.
Regarding a company’s Leadership Agenda. If Starbucks’ (or any company’s) plan is rapid growth, that is part of the leadership agenda. So it isn’t a surprise nor are there unexpected repercussions as it is all part of their strategy.
If Starbucks (or any company) is planning big growth and for some reason, that doesn’t happen - then leadership may need to change their agenda. If they expected 7% growth and only got 3% - they are down what they forecasted by 4%. This means they have less cash/spending than they anticipated.
This could mean they can’t pay for all the things they thought they would. They may need to put on hold some project that was going to need investment. They may need to reduce the % amount for pay increases or reduce the bonus amounts. Or, they may need to some sort of marketing promotion or push to make coming to the business more attractive for more people / more often and increase sales to make up that difference.