What AI Can’t Replace: The Value of True Human Connection

The more I dive into AI strategies, the more I appreciate just how valuable genuine connection is. Have you felt that too?

This past Monday, we hosted the October AI Roundtable, focusing on AI’s Impact on Hiring—how it affects both companies and job seekers. It's a challenging situation with everyone involved feeling the friction. The potential benefits seem to be falling short.

A few weeks before the roundtable, I had a LinkedIn Live conversation with Scott Holsman, President of Next Level Performers, where we discussed the same topic. Our main takeaway? No matter how much technology evolves, finding ways to connect genuinely with others remains crucial.

At the AI Roundtable, participants—whether HR professionals, hiring managers, or job seekers—all landed on the same conclusion: in today’s world, genuine connection sets companies and individuals apart.

You can find a quick recap of the Roundtable on LinkedIn, but here’s what really stood out to me: despite our growing reliance on technology, there’s a deep, persistent craving for authentic human connection.

And we can definitely tell when it’s missing or fake, right? Several people shared stories about receiving automated emails with incorrect names—little mistakes that can make interactions feel impersonal.

When true connection is genuine, it becomes even more noticeable. That’s why a moment at a Starbucks a few months ago caught my attention.

I had arrived early for a meeting, and the Starbucks manager greeted me warmly the second I walked in. Her genuine approach made an impression, but when she later came over to clear away our trash so we could spread out our papers, I was truly taken aback.

The manager wasn’t just being polite; she was paying attention and looking for ways to make our experience better, without us even asking. That kind of thoughtful service is rare these days.

As I watched her throughout the morning, she kept up this attentive attitude—arranging items on shelves, picking up trash left by customers, chatting with other tables, and encouraging her team behind the counter.

Starbucks team at Blue Ridge Crossing, Independence, MO | Kelly Byrnes

Before I left, I couldn’t resist learning more about this remarkable manager.

Mikayla, as it turned out, was new to the role. She spoke about her team with enthusiasm and genuine excitement, looking forward to the new people joining them and the changes ahead. It was clear that she cared deeply about her team and their growth. Our conversation was brief, but it left an impression—she spoke more about her team than herself.

Her team noticed us talking and happily posed for a photo. I’m not sure if they’ll remember me, but I definitely remember them—and Mikayla.

Mikayla and her team at the Starbucks in Blue Ridge Crossing, Independence, Missouri, were living reminders of the power of genuine connection.

Just by being themselves, they connected with each other and with every customer who came through that morning. In doing so, they stood out from the many automated interactions we all face in our AI-driven workdays.

The Perils of Picking a CEO

The Perils of Picking a CEO:
5 Things Starbucks Can Teach Us All About Leadership Hires

Red flags were all over the field when Starbucks hired Laxman Narasimhan as CEO in 2023, so it was not a big surprise when there were challenges during his tenure, and his time there ended after just sixteen months. The five red flags below could happen to any company, and they are shared to help others avoid the same outcomes Starbucks and its employees and customers experienced.

CULTURAL MISALIGNMENT

Starbucks has a strong and unique company culture that emphasizes community, employee engagement, and a commitment to social responsibility. Narasimhan's previous roles, particularly in the more corporate and profit-driven environments of PepsiCo and McKinsey, signaled a potential misalignment with Starbucks' values. His approach to leadership which focused on financial performance, may not have fully resonated with the Starbucks ethos.

Outcome: During his tenure, there were reports of declining employee morale and dissatisfaction among baristas, who felt overworked and underappreciated. This could be seen as a sign that Narasimhan's leadership style was not effectively fostering the inclusive and supportive environment that Starbucks prides itself on.

LACK OF RETAIL EXPERIENCE

One of the most obvious red flags was Narasimhan’s lack of experience in Starbucks’ core business. Narasimhan had a background in consumer goods, particularly at PepsiCo, and twenty years consulting at McKinsey & Company, but he lacked direct experience managing the core of Starbucks' business: retail. The retail sector, especially at the scale of Starbucks, requires a deep understanding of operational complexities, supply chain logistics, and frontline employee management—areas where Narasimhan's experience was limited.

Outcome: This gap in experience became apparent when Starbucks faced operational issues with the mobile order-ahead system. The new system was intended to enhance customer experience, but instead led to store-level chaos. Long wait times frustrated customers and stressed employees, highlighting a disconnect between corporate strategy and on-the-ground execution.​

STRATEGIC MISJUDGMENTS

Narasimhan's decision to prioritize and rapidly implement mobile order-ahead services was seen as a strategic move to modernize Starbucks. However, this strategy underestimated the operational strain it would place on stores and did not account for the complexities of managing increased digital orders alongside in-store customer service.

Outcome: The mismanagement of this initiative led to customer dissatisfaction, with many frustrated by long wait times and a decline in service quality. The strategy also alienated some loyal customers who valued the in-store experience over the convenience of mobile ordering​. The operational strain negatively impacted employee morale too.

POOR CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Starbucks, like many global brands, often finds itself at the center of social and political debates. Narasimhan's handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, which sparked backlash from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli customers, highlighted a lack of adeptness in navigating sensitive issues that require a nuanced and careful approach.

Outcome: The company's handling of this situation not only led to a public relations challenge but also negatively impacted sales. Narasimhan might not have fully appreciated the complex dynamics of leading a brand like Starbucks, which is deeply intertwined with its global customer base's social values​.

INVESTOR AND BOARD RELATIONS

Howard Schultz, the former CEO and a key figure in Starbucks' history, had a significant influence on the company and its strategic direction. Despite Schultz initially endorsing Narasimhan, there were signs that Schultz's confidence in Narasimhan waned as financial and operational issues surfaced. Additionally, activist investors like Elliott Management began to pressure the board for changes, indicating growing dissatisfaction with Narasimhan's leadership.

Outcome: The eventual loss of support from Schultz and activist investors contributed to Narasimhan's premature exit. The fact that these influential stakeholders lost confidence relatively quickly could be seen as an indicator that Narasimhan was not the right fit for the role​.

While the first two red flags were visible prior to hiring Narasimhan, the others evolved. The first two should have been enough to either not hire him in the first place or create a different onboarding plan.

For his onboarding, Narasimhan spent six months training as a barista, which gave him insight into daily store operations. He saw the anxiety over keeping up with long lines of customers and their orders, tension between stores and corporate, and supply chain management issues. He burned his hand during his time in the stores. He had good intentions but his misunderstanding of the culture and lack of experience with operations would have taken too long to repair the challenges Starbucks faced at the time.

The takeaways for our companies and us as leaders? Pay attention to the red flags you see when you are interviewing as the candidate or company.

A thorough understanding of the challenges facing the company, the skills needed to face them in the timeframe required, and a customized onboarding plan would have helped Narasimhan and Starbucks.

That understanding might have prevented Narasimhan from getting burned literally or figuratively by taking on the role in the first place.

Starbucks CEO takes the lead in stakeholder alignment

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, made news late last year when he instigated a ban of campaign donations in this $6 billion campaign year. More than 150 CEOs joined Schultz in declining to donate to incumbents during the current campaign year.

Now, Schultz is working to put Americans back to work. He was on the CBS morning show to give a glimpse of the new program and Starbucks's actions to create more jobs.

Schultz describes the Create Jobs for USA Fund, Starbucks internal job creation actions, and the impact of aligned stakeholder focus on investors. (Hint: it's good!)

Later today, Google Offers and Banana Republic revealed their efforts in the Create Jobs for USA Fund. Schultz may be one of the leaders on the forefront of the stakeholder alignment movement. Where are you and your company leaders on that front?