In 1999, Schultz stepped down as CEO in favour of Smith and had given him the authority. Gareth (1998, p. 38) states:
Particular attention was focused on the idea of making employees feel more useful and important by giving them meaningful jobs and giving as much autonomy, responsibility and recognition as possible as a means of getting them involved in their work.
The duty of any good and successful leader or manager is to create a work environment that is effective to growth. The leaders who are ready to work in teams with an appropriate level of command and authority of making decisions are considered to be successful in motivating and raising the need amongst the employees to achieve the goals.
The statement that is being provided by the company’s CEO clearly showed that he has faith in himself and is confident that he would lead the company to a much higher level with teamwork and authority because the managers or supervisors need to be authoritative in their decisions in order to lead a team. Kroom (1995, p. 355) suggests that ‘authority can be considered the managers right to act.’
Leadership approach at Starbucks seemed to be of democratic style. The leaders or supervisors of the company provides their subordinates with the prospect to work under their leadership and make them make the most of their potential fully by letting them play a part in the decision-making process and planning phase. They believe that the most successful innovation came out from their employees and by giving them the authority to bring about their job making the employees feel esteemed and honoured.
McGregor proposed a theory which became a base for leadership. According to him the manager or supervisor categorize their employees in two distinct groups of human behaviour, namely Theory X and Theory Y. Kroom (1995, p. 357) write that ‘the way in which manager or supervisor leads his subordinates is determined to a large degree, by his assumptions about human behaviour.’ .  .