Comparison of Leadership Style in Starbucks, Taco Bell and TelePizza

This article compares the leadership styles of Howard Schultz of Starbucks, John Martin of Taco Bell and Leopoldo Fernandez of TelePizza. It also discusses the concept of innovative leadership and its impact on organizations.

Running head: COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
Starbucks has been growing in their revenues since the inception of the organization
in the year 1971. The company has held the position of the fastest chain of coffee retailing in
the world. The growth of the organization was mainly presided by Howard Schultz who
purchased Starbucks along with some other investors in the year 1980. The organization has
more than 13000 outlets all over the world and leads the industry of coffee retailing as well.
The company has also seen drop in their sales after the introduction of other high quality
coffee sellers in the market. The company was however able to maintain its position in the
market in spite of the drop in their revenues. The leadership of Howard Schultz was the major
reason behind the huge success of the company in the market (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014).
The organization had face many challenges and controversies in their growth process which
had also affected its reputation. The leader was concerned that the growth of Starbucks had
further led to the loss of customer experience provided by the organization. The major
essence of Starbucks was the high quality coffee that was provided to the customers and the
smell of coffee roasting which was able to create a different ambience in the stores. Schultz
was convinced that this essence of the organization was being lost in the aggressive growth
related strategies that were followed by them (Anderson & Sun, 2017).
Taco Bell Inc. is a chain of fast food restaurant of the Mexican origin. The company
was joined by John Martin as the CEO and President of the organization in the year 1983.
The competition in the fast food industry had risen in a huge manner within the year 1960 to
1970. Taco Bell was in a bad position during this time as they were facing issues related to
the low levels of technology that were used for their operations. The organization had almost
60% of the total share of the Mexican market. However, they had quite less shares in the
global market. The joining of John Martin in the organization had helped Taco Bell to receive
a reasonable position in the market. The first step that was taken Martin was related to the
modernization of the various units of the company that were operating in the industry (Buble,

2
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
Juras & Matić, 2014). New items were also added to the menu of the restaurants. The entire
structure and the look of the outlets of Taco Bell was changed. The needs of the consumers
were taken into account and the service was also designed accordingly. The company had
also implemented the strategy of lowering the prices of their products and the costs related to
the manufacture of these products as well. The roles that were played by the managers in the
restaurants were also changed in the process. The decision-making capabilities were given to
the employees who were appointed as managers in the various outlets.
The CEO of the TelePizza named Leopoldo Fernandez had been the major face of
development if the organization. He had been planning the operations of TeleGrill which was
related to the improvement in the operations of TelePizza. The concept of TelePizza was
developed from the learning that was gained by Fernandez after the implementation of the
knowledge that he had gained from the failures and the successes of the various fast food
chains in the world. The commitment of the employees of TelePizza was an important factor
that affected the thought process of Fernandez. The major strategy that was implemented in
TelePizza was related to the importance that was given to the employees (DuBois et al.,
2015). The delivery people or the store managers were given various opportunities by the
management to develop their own lives. The flexibility of the organization was also a major
reason behind its success in the industry. The human resource management related policies of
the organization were changed under the leadership of Fernandez. The policies were mainly
related to the recruitment of the best and young talent for the proper operations of the
organization.
Innovative leadership is the process which is related to a combination various
philosophies and leadership styles which can influence the employees to produce their
creative ideas related to the services and the products that are offered by the organizations.
Innovative leadership is the role that is played by the leaders to influence the employees so

3
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
that they can use their creative minds and implement their ideas in the various business
processes. The process of innovative leadership involves the usage of the various styles of
leadership. The major traits that are related to the innovative leaders are, the open behaviour
of the leaders, creating a work environment that is creative in nature. The ways of
formulating processes that can lead to problem-solving and creative thinking (Khattak, Batool
& Haider, 2017). The environment which allows the employees to evaluate and implement
their ideas is also a major part of the innovative leadership process. The major requirements
that are related to innovative leadership are the clear vision related to strategy, the strong
focus of the leaders on the customers, the trust related to the ability of communicating
upwards in the organization.
The leadership style that has been followed by Howards Schultz is transformational
and democratic in nature. The involvement of the employees in the various decisions and the
ideas related to the development of the organization has been the major advantage for
Starbucks. The organization has always given preference to the needs of the end users or the
customers (Yahaya & Ebrahim, 2016). This has helped the organization in gaining a unique
position in the industry and increase its revenues as well. The innovative style of leadership
that has been followed by Schultz has revolved around inspiration and motivation of the
followers or the employees of the organization (Nanjundeswaraswamy & Swamy, 2014).
On the other hand, the success of Taco Bell was a result of the top-down approach
related to the implementation of change in the organization. The new leader of the
organization, John Martin had made many changes in the entire structure and the operations
of Taco Bell in the industry. The changes were implemented in the technologies of the
company which made Taco Bell capable of competing with the other organizations in the
industry. The implementation of changes was possible with the help of innovative mind and
style of leadership of John Martin. Many new methods related to training and development

4
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
were also introduced in the organization which help Taco Bell to create its position in the fast
food industry. The innovations were made in the various organizational processes in this case
which further resulted in its sustainability in the industry (Saeed et al., 2014).
The leadership Fernandez on the other hand was not enough innovative related to the
standards of Schultz. However, the leader was able to bring the organization to a position
which would be profitable for its operations. The leader was however successful in building
the brand of the company and create a distinct identity of the products in the minds of the
consumers. The main target market of the organization were the young children as the orders
related to pizza are mainly decided by the children in the family. The company was able to
expand its operations in the other countries and had created a unique brand value. This was
possible due to the effective leadership quality that was depicted by Fernandez (Sethuraman
& Suresh, 2014).
The innovative style of leadership can therefore help in the successful operations of
the various organizations in the industry. The employees get a chance to thrive in the industry
and further improve their operations under the leadership of the inspirational and innovative
leaders.

5
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
References
Al-Asfour, A., & Lettau, L. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational
workforce. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(2), 58.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P. Y. (2017). Reviewing leadership styles: Overlaps and the need
for a new ‘full‐range’theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1),
76-96.
Buble, M., Juras, A., & Matić, I. (2014). The relationship between managers’ leadership
styles and motivation. Management: journal of contemporary management
issues, 19(1), 161-193.
DuBois, M., Hanlon, J., Koch, J., Nyatuga, B., & Kerr, N. (2015). Leadership styles of
effective project managers: Techniques and traits to lead high performance
teams. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance, and
Marketing, 7(1), 30.
Khattak, S. R., Batool, S., & Haider, M. (2017). Relationship of Leadership Styles and
Employee Creativity: A Mediating Role of Creative Self-efficacy and Moderating
Role of Organizational Climate. Pakistan Journal of Commerce & Social
Sciences, 11(2).
Nanjundeswaraswamy, T. S., & Swamy, D. R. (2014). Leadership styles. Advances in
management, 7(2), 57.
Saeed, T., Almas, S., Anis-ul-Haq, M., & Niazi, G. S. K. (2014). Leadership styles:
relationship with conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 25(3), 214-225.

6
COMPARISON OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
Saleem, H. (2015). The impact of leadership styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of
perceived organizational politics. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 563-
569.
Sethuraman, K., & Suresh, J. (2014). Effective leadership styles. International Business
Research, 7(9), 165.
Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment:
literature review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190-216.