For those who are not well versed in the training of a Starbucks Partner (as we are all called due to the fact that everyone is entitled to stock options and therefor "owns" part of the company), I would like to inform you that is it my job to be nice. It is in my job description. It was a big part of my training. In fact there is a whole program on being a nice person that is ongoing in the company. There are five characteristics in which we are encouraged to develop ourselves, and we are even given awards, and can give awards to others, who exemplify those behaviors. They include being welcoming, considerate and involved. Each behavior has a detailed explanation of ways that we could live them out in our daily life at work. But there is something strange about being paid to be nice, having it be part of my job, and not just a suggestion.
Talking with others outside of my job about this, we have agreed that there are uncomfortable feelings around the required niceness of those in sales positions. After explaining this niceness training to a friend, she had the experience of going into a sbux and the girl who waited on her complimented her shirt. At first she felt great, thinking her carefully chosen fabulous wardrobe had been recognized and praised. But then she worried that maybe it was only because the girl was doing her job, and perhaps didn't really care for her shirt at all.
Which leads to the question, does being required to be nice undermine real human interaction? Does it make us fake, disingenuous or insincere?
And here begins one aspect of the spiritual practice.
Becuase I believe that all people deserve to be treated with dignity, and that all people have God within them, I decided to use this required niceness as a way to practice recognizing the beauty and humanity in each person (which is certainly not the easiest thing to do at 5am when someone is rude about their coffee order).
To wax a bit theological here, Martin Buber, Jewish theologian and philosopher wrote of existence as encounter. We can encounter in different ways. According to Buber there is the Ich-Es (I-It) encounter and the Ich-Du (I-Thou) encounter. In the first instance, we encounter something/someone as an objectified being. We project onto the other preconceived notions. We see them as something to be used for our own benefit. Though Buber's work goes much deeper into these concept, expanding and further developing them, what I take from this does not require that we journey that far together right now.
To me, the interaction as barista to customer, with the superimposed facade of paid-for-friendliness, embodies the I-It encounter. The problem with this for me is that when I encounter someone in a way that is a living manifestation of the I-It concept, I am not recognizing them as whole people. I am not acknowledging their humanity. Instead I see only their complicated and annoying coffee order, or the fact that they don't take the time to uncrumple their money. Even when I smile politely and ensure them I hope they have a great day, I am only following protocol and not allowing my heart to be truly open to these people.
Granted, more often than not I have about 30 seconds with each customer. This is not a lot of time to provide a soul reaching, uplifting, I-Thou encounter. But it is more than enough time to be present and genuine in how I act. Each customer provides me with a moment, a chance, to practice mindfulness. They give me the opportunity to remember that each one of us deserves to be treated with as a whole person, and act that out.
So what makes this that different than the paid-for-friendliness? I think what it comes down to is intention. I am friendly because I think it is part of living out what I believe in. I would be friendly even if I didn't get awards or pay raises because of it.
By approaching this work as a spiritual practice, I am able to work on turning my required niceness into a practice of mindful recognition of the wondrous humanity I am surrounded with. And often I am blessed with a reciprocation of such recognition. Of course I am not perfect at this. I know that there are plenty of times I don't live up to this goal. But I keep trying, and that's why it's a practice. When I notice myself getting fake or grumpy or tired, I have to take a breath and remember that this is not easy. I can't get down on myself as I sometimes want to. Sometimes I even have to make a quick garbage run or trip to the bathroom, not to use the facilaties as intend, but to take a moment to myself to recenter.
With Faith I shall keep practicing,
KTM
and tune in next time for "I am not the muffin: an exercise in self- differentiation"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hi,
You made me laugh and you made me think.
Yes, when we are nice in a fake way, I don't think it does anything particularly positive. I admire your commitment to practicing the work of seeing the worth and dignity of each person. I think you said it a slightly different way though, and don't mean to dis the thinking that went into the way you said it. But looking for something worthwhile in each moment is certainly a practice I challenge myself to.
I noticed this morning as I was walking and praying that there is beauty that is sometimes very specific to the situation. For example, the way the morning sunlight cuts through the trees as one walks a shady path is gorgeous from a distance. When one is in the blinding sunlight, it is different. The sun gets in your eyes, you can't see much, but the sun might feel good on your face. Sometimes a shift in perspective can be a powerful way to connect to "the spirit."
Thanks for the heads up about the blog!
FYI, the UUA's General Investment Fund currently holds about $850,000 in Starbucks stock, second only to Google in total volume. So, in a weirdly circuitous way, you might think of your time at Starbucks as being both spiritually and financially linked to Unitarian Universalism.
Hi KT,
Thanks for sharing your Starbucks spiritual journey with us. There's much food for thought in what you've written. My first response to mandated niceness is that it feels like a shortcut to Stepford mentality, mannequin manners. And yet what if we were able to constructively and creatively address the factors that lead so many in our society (me too) to frustration, grumpiness, road rage, etc., such that we could be, more consistently, more genuine in our niceness.
In one of my seminary classes last term, the professor told us of a project undertaken in her congregation, and I've thought about this a lot since I heard about it. That was to visit the workplaces of the participants in the adult ed group she was leading for the church community. At each work site, the question was posed: what is evil here?
Wow. I gasped. I was astounded. How often do we ask that plain and simple question openly in any setting, and then talk it through, in community? And from all points of view, discern a calling, to reduce or eliminate what's evil. If we were to systematically address evil, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be so grumpy so often; we might all be more regularly, authentically happier. And therefore nicer people for real, instead of just as an act.
It seems to me that we are called to recognize our angers and frustrations as the gifts that they are, and rather than simply stuffing them, to address their causes effectively. And part of that challenge is cultivation of empathy, as opposed to a more selfish point of view. It's not just about how we each walk in the world as individuals (although it is that, in part); it's also about how we are together in community.
Takes lots of energy and mindful presence.
Struggling with these dynamics myself sometimes, so kudos to you for reflecting publicly about it.
Blessings,
Yvonne
Your idea of doing this blog is a wonderful one, and I appreciate the clarity of your reflection. Meaningful, stimulating, and a valuable way for others to be enriched spiritually as well. Thank you.
Requiring "niceness" is a topic full of import. I personally hate "shoulds" and favor principles over rules, guidelines over mandates. On the other hand fake niceness is better than true discourtesy. Who was it that said "act as if and it will become so."
I wish to respond to Yvonne's comment about going to the workplace and asking "What's evil here?" The question might also be asked "What's good here?" “What’s pleasant or unpleasant here?” “What’s effective or ineffective here?”
It's been my experience in seminary that some people stereotype business as automatically bad or evil. Yvonne’s teacher isn’t necessarily doing this, but if “What is good here?” is not also being asked, that is a possibility.
Stereotyping workplaces as automatically evil or automatically good are both mistakes, as any stereotyping or de facto assumptions and generalizations are mistakes, or at least failures to see the life in a situation and what is really happening. One might even see assumptions, projections, and stereotypes as potentially violent or evil because they prevent us from seeing what is real and life enhancing in a situation we for other reasons don't like.
How about starting with "What is going on here?" And then discerning "What good or what evil or what mediocrity can we see in it?" All of these are of course judgments. So then I look for other questions that can help people and myself "really see" what is so, given that we bring so much context, history, and baggage to any perception.
The questions I come to that make the most sense for me are "What is encouraging life, good, truth, fairness, and vitality here?" And What is blocking or stifling life, good, truth, fairness, and vitality here?"
I've researched people in various jobs and what happens when people find work enjoyable or meaningful. Somebody in a job that we might detest can very well find something uplifting and meaningful in it.
It is evil when people are controlled and abused. It is evil when people of comparable qualifications and skills are paid differently for the same work? It is evil to be sexually harrassed or demeaned for one's appearance and lifestyle choices.
I do not think it is evil for employeees to have performance standards for being an effective employee. Nor evil to remove "nicely" unruly customers from the store. Nor evil to expect people to pay the price one has posted. It may be expecting a lot to pay a lot, but it is a choice both customers and purveyors have in any business. What the traffic will bear. A discussion of "what is a fair profit might be left for another time."
Besides good and evil, we could ask are these behaviors effective or not effective? Are they supporting life or stifling life?
Or rather than dichotomizing everything into yes-no questions, ask "to what extent?" or "in what proportion?" ... I'll leave it at these questions. There are so many other forms of inquiring.
I know of a Starbucks in Berkeley where a local homeless man who writes poetry has "office hours." Is it good that they do that, letting him stay longer than his coffee purchase would normally take? Is it evil if they don't give a poor person coffee if he or she doesn't have the $4 to buy it. Is it good or evil or somewhere in between that Starbucks costs on average $28 per gallon and huge amounts of monay are being made for its employee partner stockholders and even the Unitarian Universalists?
Thank again for a very rich opportunity to reflect. I'll look forward to continuing to read here, and hope at a future time you might compile these reflections as a document or book.
I suppose what struck me first about the "nicenes" policy was that at least it's trasnparent. It seems to me that often there's an expectation that we will be "nice," whether we're paid for it or not. To have the expectation of niceness articulated clearly seems to reveal the embedded expectations that often go unnoticed and unspoken.
I will follow this aspect of your spiritual journey with interest.
Laura I.
Thanks so much for sharing your fabulous writing and thinking. I loved the way that you made the psychological jargon of Buber come alive in a way that it never has for me before. Such beauty in such simplicity (not that any of this is easy or silly).
What seems so important is the idea of not objectifying another (or ourselves) but intentionally searching for the authentic, innate reality that each of us carries. I wonder if just in the act of taking the focus off of ourselves and the way that WE are acting, and putting the focus on being aware of another can shift us into an authentic encounter.
Thank you for bringing such heady concepts into daily reality in such a meaningful way.
Post a Comment