为什么“明星 CEO”也挽救不了 Starbucks？

过去一年，星巴克请来了 Brian Niccol 这位在餐饮行业声名显赫的“明星 CEO”（Niccol曾经因为让Chipotle·品牌重振而名声大振），原本寄望他能像当年扭转 Chipotle 那样让公司重回增长。然而，从最近几个季度的财务表现来看，Starbucks 的复苏并不顺利，甚至持续走弱。为什么 Niccol 的上任并没有立即带来起色？归根结底就是他的策略与 星巴克的文化基因深度不兼容。

那么星巴克的情况有多糟糕呢？2025 财年第三季度，公司全球同店销售额下降 2%，这是连续第六个季度的同店下滑。净利润也从去年同期的 10.5 亿美元跌至 5.58 亿美元，每股收益从 0.93 美元降到 0.49 美元。虽然营收仍增长至约 95 亿美元，同比提升 4%，但增长主要依赖大规模开新店，而非老门店业绩改善。这说明公司的核心竞争力其实并未被重新点燃，也没有回到 Schultz 时代那种“员工带动体验、体验带动顾客、顾客带来增长”的良性循环。

从星巴克的历史来看，它的成功从来不是靠流程效率，而是靠人与人之间的温度著称。Schultz 从意大利引入“第三空间”概念，让星巴克成为介于家与办公室之间的社群空间，它的核心是 barista 与顾客之间自然真实的互动，以及对员工的高度信任与自主权。但 Niccol 的管理风格更擅长标准化、流程化，这在 Chipotle 的快餐模式下很成功，却与 星巴克的文化本质相冲突。严格的着装规范、统一的话术脚本、规定必须在杯子上写“真诚的话”——这些措施让“真诚”变成 KPI，让本应自然发生的交流变得机械，也在员工内部产生抵触。

那么为什么星巴克的温度对其品牌如此重要呢？首先在星巴克崛起之前，美国咖啡店的面貌确实非常不同的。那时候的咖啡馆以廉价、快速和功能性为主导，咖啡并不代表生活方式，也没有如今的氛围和文化意义。美国人日常接触的咖啡主要来自快餐店、diner、便利店等。咖啡是一种功能性的饮品，价格低廉，品质并不讲究。大多数咖啡被批量煮制后长时间保温，口味单一、苦涩，被视为一种必需品而不是乐趣所在。当时的美国并没有意大利式的咖啡馆文化，也没有人会为了体验而坐进一家咖啡店。

在这样的情况下，咖啡师也并不存在作为一个独立职业的意义。店员的任务只是倒出大壶咖啡、加奶加糖，再收下付款，如同今日的Tim Hortons。饮品制作没有任何专业性，也没有手工技巧，更没有人际温度。“barista”这个如今广为人知的词，在当时的美国几乎无人理解。咖啡行业完全缺乏个性、创意与体验属性，只是便利消费的一部分。

正是在这个时候，星巴克带来了行业的变革，重新想象了咖啡屋的含义。1983 年，Howard Schultz 在意大利看到了截然不同的咖啡文化，人与咖啡馆之间存在一种温暖而自然的社群关系。意大利人每天站在吧台前，与咖啡师交流，享受片刻属于自己的美好时光。于是Schultz 意识到，美国缺的不是咖啡，而是围绕咖啡所构建的文化和体验。他将这种愿景带回美国，为星巴克注入了深远的文化使命。

而真正支撑这一切的，是对员工角色的重新定义。星巴克将店员视为“伙伴”，并给予专业训练、福利与文化认同。员工不再是倒咖啡的人，而是能够通过技艺与服务为顾客创造体验的 barista。这种以人为本的文化，使星巴克不只是销售咖啡，而是在构建人与人之间的连接。咖啡馆里的每一次交流、每一杯定制饮品、每一次微笑，都成为体验的一部分。

在星巴克的影响下，美国咖啡市场发生了根本性转变。咖啡不再只是功能性饮料，而成为一种生活方式；咖啡店不再是快餐场所，而成为社交与文化空间；员工不再是机器的一部分，而成为体验的创造者，这也是为何星巴克能够从西雅图的一家小店成长为全球文化品牌。

正因为如此，新CEONiccol强调的流程效率让员工更难在门店内创造星巴克曾经引以为傲的人情味，而在服务行业中，前线员工是否感到被信任、是否拥有自主权，往往直接决定顾客体验的好坏。尤其在星巴克目前已存在劳资紧张、员工组织化提升、流动率高的情况下，进一步加强控制和要求，只会加剧不满，影响服务质量，使任何战略更难落地。

这里要提一下另一个我曾经在柠檬水博客里提到的美国书店品牌Barnes & Noble（巴诺书店）。大家都知道，巴诺书店由于收到亚马逊的严重冲击，曾经面临可能破产的危机。但是，在过去几年间它却实现了令人意外的复兴，其成功之道也许值得星巴克借鉴。巴诺书店CEO James Daunt 接掌公司后，并没有加强总部控制，而是做了恰恰相反的事：把权力下放。他允许每家店像独立书店一样，根据当地顾客喜好自行设计陈列、选品、活动与社区互动。Daunt 觉得书店只有在本地化中才能重新变得有生命力。结果，Barnes & Noble 不仅止跌回升，在最近几年里更是逆势扩张了几十家门店。

因此，Barnes & Noble 的经验为星巴克提供了一个关键启示：真正的转折，必须从“让员工重新拥有话语权”开始，而不是从流程控制或效率提升开始。如果星巴克也能鼓励门店在一定框架下拥有更多自主权，例如店面布置、互动方式、特色饮品、社区活动，也许也会有机会像 Barnes & Noble 那样，让每家门店都重新成为“有个性的空间”，而不仅是标准化的连锁节点。

总结一下的话，星巴克面临的问题从来不是明星 CEO 能否带来流程优化，而是管理层能否恢复当初构成品牌灵魂的以人为本的文化。

Why Even a Star CEO Can’t Save Starbucks

Over the past year, Starbucks brought in Brian Niccol, a highly acclaimed “star CEO” in the restaurant industry, best known for reviving the Chipotle brand, with the hope that he could engineer a similar turnaround and return the company to growth. Yet judging from Starbucks’ financial performance over the past few quarters, the recovery has been anything but smooth; in fact, the business has continued to weaken. Why has Niccol’s arrival not produced an immediate improvement? Fundamentally, it is because his strategy is deeply incompatible with Starbucks’ core DNA that has once made it so successful.

So how bad are things at Starbucks? In the third quarter of fiscal 2025, the company’s global same-store sales fell by 2%, marking the sixth consecutive quarter of decline. Net profit dropped from USD 1.05 billion in the same period last year to USD 558 million, and earnings per share fell from USD 0.93 to USD 0.49. Although total revenue still grew to roughly USD 9.5 billion, a 4% year-over-year increase, that growth was driven mainly by aggressive store openings rather than improved performance of existing stores. This shows that the company’s core engine of competitiveness has not been reignited and that Starbucks has not yet returned to the positive cycle that once defined the Schultz era: employees create great experiences, experiences drive customer loyalty, and customers drive growth.

Looking back at Starbucks’ history, the company was never built on operational efficiency; it became famous for the warmth of human connection. Schultz brought back the idea of the “third place” from Italy, turning Starbucks into a community space between home and work. At the heart of this model was the natural, genuine interaction between baristas and customers, supported by a high level of trust and autonomy for employees. Niccol’s management style, however, is rooted in standardization and process-driven control, which is highly effective for Chipotle’s fast-casual model but deeply at odds with Starbucks’ cultural foundations. Strict dress codes, standardized scripts, and even requirements to write something “genuine” on each cup turn authenticity into a KPI. These measures mechanize what should be organic human interactions and inevitably create internal resistance among employees.

Why is this sense of warmth so crucial to Starbucks’ brand? To answer this, we must recall that before Starbucks rose to prominence, American coffee shops looked entirely different. Coffee culture at the time was dominated by cheap, fast, functional consumption. Coffee did not represent a lifestyle, nor was it associated with ambiance or cultural meaning. Most Americans encountered coffee through fast-food restaurants, diners, or convenience stores. Coffee was a low-cost stimulant, mass-brewed and kept warm for hours, with a flat and often bitter taste - more of a necessity than a pleasure. The United States had nothing like Italy’s café culture, and no one would sit in a coffee shop to enjoy the experience.

In such an environment, the role of the baristas did not exist. The person behind the counter simply poured coffee from a large pot, added milk and sugar, and took payment, much like what you would see today at Tim Hortons. There was no craftsmanship, no specialized technique, and no human warmth. The word “barista,” now widely recognized, was virtually unknown in America at the time. The coffee industry lacked personality, creativity, and experiential value; it was merely a branch of convenience-driven consumption.

It was at this moment that Starbucks introduced a reimagination of what a coffee shop could be. In 1983, Howard Schultz observed in Italy a coffee culture built on warm, organic social connection between people and cafés. Italians stood at the bar counter, chatted with their baristas, and enjoyed those small moments of pleasure. Schultz realized that what America lacked was not coffee itself, but the culture and experience surrounding coffee. He brought this vision back to the U.S. and infused Starbucks with a profound cultural mission.

What truly sustained this transformation was a redefinition of the employee role. Starbucks treated staff as “partners” and offered professional training, meaningful benefits, and a sense of cultural identity. Employees were no longer simply pouring coffee; they became baristas capable of creating experiences for customers through craft and hospitality. This people-centric culture meant that Starbucks was not merely selling beverages; it was forging human connections. Every interaction in the store, every customized drink, and every smile became part of the experience.

Under Starbucks’ influence, the American coffee market underwent a fundamental transformation. Coffee ceased to be merely a functional beverage and became a lifestyle product; coffee shops ceased to be fast-food extensions and became social and cultural spaces; and employees ceased to be cogs in a machine and became creators of experience. This is why Starbucks could grow from a small shop in Seattle into a global cultural brand.

For this reason, Niccol’s emphasis on efficiency and standardization makes it harder for employees to recreate the warmth that once defined Starbucks. In the service industry, front-line workers’ sense of trust and autonomy directly shapes customer experience. When a company is already dealing with labor tensions, rising employee organization, and high turnover, adding more control only fuels dissatisfaction, harms service quality, and makes any strategy harder to implement.

At this point, it is worth mentioning another brand I discussed previously in the “Turn Lemons Into Lemonade” podcast: Barnes & Noble. The American bookstore chain was once on the brink of collapse under pressure from Amazon, yet it has experienced a surprising revival in recent years, a revival Starbucks might learn from. When CEO James Daunt took over, he did the opposite of tightening headquarters control: he decentralized it. He allowed each store to operate like an independent bookstore, designing its own displays, curating its own selection, and engaging with its local community based on local tastes. Daunt believed that bookstores can only regain vitality through localization. As a result, Barnes & Noble not only stabilized but has expanded by dozens of stores in recent years.

Barnes & Noble’s experience may offer Starbucks a valuable insight: real turnaround must begin by giving employees and stores back their voice, not by imposing more controls or chasing efficiency. If Starbucks encouraged its stores to exercise greater autonomy within a reasonable framework, whether through store layout, customer interaction style, local specialty drinks, or community events, it might similarly enable each location to regain personality instead of functioning as a standardized chain outlet.

In short, Starbucks’ challenges have never been about whether a star CEO can optimize processes. The real question is whether leadership can restore the people-centric culture that once formed the soul of the Starbucks brand.