Analyze Tasty Burger from Boston though political lens - Essay Example

The owners are the founders and partners of the firm, and they are David Dubois, Maureen McLaughlin, Phil Audino, and Bryan Reyelt. These internal stakeholders are depicted in various ways in the interviews, from being passive aggressive to being in a way cool and helpful and encouraging when it comes to dealing with the employees. There is also the sense of the owners/partners being very hands on and involved with the daily operations. This can be because it is young chain and that there are only three branches at present.

(Amber, 2013; Miller, 2013; Reyelt, 2013; Gotreau, 2013; Dan, 2013; Ed, 2013; Wash, 2013; Richard, 2013; Audino, 2013; Tasty Burger Holding, 2011). One key issue with the owners/partners is that there is evidence of them not being able to trust people outside of a core group. Insiders get the bonuses and the inside track on promotions and future plans, but outsiders are left in the dark, and are generally not treated as well. For instance, whereas Ed at Fenway was privy to expansion plans and received bonuses on an annual basis, Dan at Harvard Square did not even know that there is a bonus or rewards program in place for people at their level.

The bar manager, meanwhile, was not even aware that there is an expansion plan being pushed, even though she was in charge of a group, bars and wines basically that spanned all of the Tasty Burger branches. This latter is evidence that the owners did not share plans with all, but only with those that they deem trustworthy enough. Looking at the interview with Phil Audino, meanwhile, one sees that the trust issue is at play when the group decided to make one of the partners, Brian, the director for Marketing.

The reason cited here is that the use of an outsider didn’t cut it, because they needed someone who knew what it is like to run the business from the inside. The group’s bias towards an insider is very evident here, and conversely so too is the owners’ distrust generally of outsiders. One can also say that key employees can be thought of as constituting the internal stakeholders at Tasty Burger. From the interviews, some of the employees who have been promoted and are being eyed to play larger roles during and after the expansion are part of the internal stakeholders too.

The store manager at Southie, Amber, notes that in general the treatment of the managers and key people is generally fairly good, but that the treatment of the non-core personnel, the ordinary staff, can be awful. This tells us too that directionally, the thrust is to treat management personnel as key people who are to be part of the internal stakeholders of the company in the long term (Amber, 2013; Miller, 2013; Reyelt, 2013; Gotreau, 2013; Dan, 2013; Ed, 2013; Wash, 2013; Richard, 2013; Audino, 2013; Tasty Burger Holding, 2011; Tasty Burger Holding, n.d.).

That said, strictly speaking ordinary staff are internal stakeholders too. It is not a surprise though that as can be gleaned from Amber’s comments, that they are considered as inessential or replaceable and not a part of the long-term plans of the organization. The curt replies in the interviews also further reinforce the notion that the ordinary staff have either low engagement with the company, as reflected in the focus on pay and working to get paid, or else that they are passive about their own future about the firm, taking into consideration that they have not been treated well