Love and the moral structure of business toward a tripartite ethos for human enterprise

5 Love and the Moral Structure of Business Toward a Tripartite Ethos of Michael F.. We suggest that love – i.e., acting out of concern and care for the other – is the critical and m

5 Love and the Moral Structure

of Business

Toward a Tripartite Ethos of

Michael F Mascolo and David A Greenway

Is Business Just Business?

We tend to think of business and love as occupying separate spheres of life

Business operates in the impersonal public sphere, whereas love occurs in

the private or interpersonal sphere Business practices are largely separate

and distinct from individual morals, societal values, and responsibility –

what Freeman describes as the “separation thesis” (1994) There is,

how-ever, nothing natural or inevitable about this bifurcation Indeed, the

common belief that love properly belongs to the private sphere functions

to protect business from its moral force However, love is not something

that is encased in the private sphere It already exists within the

prac-tice of business To the extent that self- interest is a form of self- love, it

already exists, sotto voce, in the public sphere of business If this is so, in

business as in other forms of life, love of self will necessarily come into

confl ict with love for the other ( Macmurray, 1961 ) When this happens,

love functions as a moral emotion ( Velleman, 1999 ) Our love for the

other is self- arresting: it calls on us to include the other within the sphere

of our own interests In this way, in business as in everyday life, a moral

identity is born

Theologian John Macmurray (1961) suggested that human action is organized around two primary emotions: fear for the self and love for

the other We understand love as “care,” while fear for the self consists

of the human tendency to avoid vulnerability in favor of emotional self-

protection from others Depending on the context and particular sphere

of action (e.g., public or private), we may fi nd ourselves vacillating

between these poles of experience One might suggest that it is in the very

tension between self- interest and love for the other that moral selfhood

emerges and takes form ( Cima & Schubeck, 2001 ; Macmurray, 1961 )

Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson remarked that “self- interest

is the greatest impediment to love” ( Wilson & Barsade, 2020 ) From this

perspective, it is by intentionally reconciling the contradiction between

self- interest and concern for others that we come to create a moral

iden-tity We do this when we acknowledge the experience and suff ering of

others and defi ne our self- interest to include the value and well- being of

others Therefore, we adopt a view of love as the felt state of bestowing

value onto some beloved object ( Singer, 1984 )

In this chapter we propose a tripartite ethos of organizations and human organization and enterprise Current business practices are

defi ned primarily in terms of rights and freedom – e.g., self- interest, the

free market, the rights of owners (versus the rights of employees and

con-sumers, etc.) – and virtue (doing what’s good) – e.g corporate

responsi-bility We suggest that love – i.e., acting out of concern and care for the

other – is the critical and missing component of the moral framework

that guides contemporary business practices In off ering this tripartite

ethos, we draw on a relational approach to morality and moral

develop-ment ( Frimer & Walker, 2009 ; Mascolo et al., u nder review; Mascolo &

DiBianca Fasoli, 2020 ) To better understand love within human

enter-prise, we fi rst examine what it means to speak about love as an emotion

and follow with a discussion of the structure and forms of love We then

outline our model of a tripartite ethos of human enterprise We illustrate

the role of love within this tripartite model, with an analysis of the

phil-osophy and practices of the Market Basket corporation, a popular

gro-cery chain located in Massachusetts that earned high levels of employee

and customer loyalty through a commitment to a “people fi rst, groceries

second” ethos

What It Means to Love

To what does the word love refer? Love is broadly considered to be a form

of emotion To understand what we mean by love, it is helpful to fi rst

situate love within a broader understanding of the nature of emotional

experience Drawing on a relational conception of emotion ( Mascolo,

2009 , 2020 ; Fogel, 1993 ; Lazarus, 1991 ), emotional experiences consist

of felt modes of engaging the world As such, emotions are not simply

inner states encased within the private interior of individuals; instead,

they are relational processes that arise between the person and the world

It is helpful to understand emotional states in terms of at least three broad

categories of interacting systems These include (a) motive- event relations

(sometimes referred to as appraisals), (b) phenomenal experience, and

(c) motive- action tendencies ( Frijda, 2009 ; Frijda et al., 1989 ; Mascolo,

2020 ; Young & Zhu, 2019 )

Appraisals (i.e., motive- event relations) consist of ongoing assessments

of changes between one’s circumstances and one’s goals, motives, desires,

and concerns ( Frijda, 1986 ) In any given situation, appraisals typically

operate outside of consciousness ( Mascolo & Kallio, 2019) Diff erent

forms of appraisal produce bodily changes and diff erent forms of

phe-nomenal experience ( Schwarz & Clore, 2007 ) which correspond to the

felt aspects of the person’s mode of engaging the world Motive- action

tendencies, as the focus of our exploration, consist of what a person is

motivated to do in the context of the ongoing appraisal ( Frijda, 2004 )

They consist of patterns of expressive ( Ekman, 1993 ) and instrumental

action ( Frijda, 2004 ) that function in the service of operate goals,

motives, and concerns Unless regulated, expressive and bodily aspects

of emotional states communicate a person’s emotional state to others

Instrumental actions function to bring events in line with the goals,

motives, and concerns involved in a person’s appraisal of a given event

( Scherer, 1982 )

Felt experience plays a central role in organizing representations of personally signifi cant circumstances in consciousness At any given point

in time, nonconscious appraisal processes monitor the full range of events

for their adaptive signifi cance – i.e., functioning in the service of operate

goals, motives, and concerns ( Moors et al., 2013 ) Appraisals that

have implications for the fate of one’s motives evoke aff ective changes

( Roseman, 2004 ) Those aff ective changes thereupon select, from the

full range of unconsciously appraised events, those events that are most

signifi cant to the person’s goals, motives, and concerns ( Lazarus, 1991 ;

Lewis, 1986 ) They amplify their importance and organize representations

of those events into consciousness for more deliberate action ( Tomkins,

1981 ) In this way, emotions play a central role in the organization of

conscious life (W J Freeman, 2000 )

The Structure of Love

Love is the felt state of bestowing value onto an object ( Rempel & Burris,

2005 ; Singer, 1984 ) Table 5.1 provides a generalized description of the

structure of love as it is understood in Western- European cultures The

“appraisal” involved in love is better understood as a kind of bestowal

To make this point, Singer (1984 ) distinguishes the concept of bestowal

from the everyday concept of appraisal While an appraisal refl ects the

impartial, impersonal, or “market value” of the object, a bestowal is an

expression of personal valuing; it is not conditioned by the “objective”

Table 5.1 The Omnibus Structure of Love

Motive - event

relation (appraisal)

Phenomenal experience

Motive- action tendency (Expressive and instrumental action)

Bestowal of value

on a known person

Feeling of being moved toward the other; holistic sense

of communion, completion or harmony with the other

Making the interests of the other

my own; acting on the basis

of the interests of the other; to take care of, nurture or protect the object; to commune or give

of oneself to the other; to form

a joint identity with the other;

possess the object or have it as one’s own

features of the object in question For example, when purchasing a

home, a house may be appraised at some market value – an estimate of

what buyers are willing to pay for the house Because love is a bestowal

rather than an appraisal, a person can thus love a house regardless of its

appraised market value

Like other emotions, love is directed toward an object (or other); it

is about something, real or imagined Unless we are speaking of self-

love, love is not typically about the self This stipulation is important in

distinguishing mature from immature forms of love For example, the

child does not love the caregiver out of a sense of valuing him or her as

a person who is known to have particular qualities; instead, the child’s

love consists of the embodied appreciation what the mother does for the

child – for the care and aff ection she bestows onto the child This does not

render the child’s love less valid – only less fully developed In contrast

to such early forms of love, mature love is born of knowledge ( Fromm,

1961 ) – an appreciation of the other person as person, and not simply

an appreciation for what the other does for the self By bestowing value

onto diff erent types of objects, individuals can love their job, colleagues,

or organizations

In love, because the other has value to us, its motive- action tendency involves the desire to care for, nurture, and protect the loved object

Further, when we bestow value onto an object, we want to possess it –

that is, to have it for ourselves If the object of love is another person,

we may seek a joint identity with the other – an “us” rather than simply

“you” and “me” ( Nozick, 1991 ) We seek to make the interests of the

other part of our own In so doing, we are motivated to give of ourselves

to the other Giving of our self is diff erent from sacrifi cing the self for

the other ( Fromm, 1961 ) When we give of ourselves, we not only retain

our integrity, our selves are also enhanced: we feel our own vitality, our

power in being to contribute to the well- being of the beloved

The phenomenal experience of love consists of the felt aspects of acting

on the basis of one’s bestowal of value onto the object or person When

we care for, nurture, or act on the basis of the interests of the other, we

experience a sense of vitality – the power that comes from contributing

to the well- being of the other or the loved object We feel an increased

sense of communion with the other, completion, or harmony with the

other ( Davitz, 2016 ) The experience is not something that is separate

from the bestowal or motive- action tendency; instead, it is felt state of the

bestowal and pattern of action readiness toward the other

How Love Transforms Self- Interest

At this point, we return to Macmurray’s (1961) distinction between fear

for the self and love for the other Viewed as an expression of self- interest,

and to the extent that business activity is typically understood as an

expression of self- interest, love for the other is typically seen as secondary

or even irrelevant ( George, 2014 ) But this assertion depends heavily on

what it means to speak of self- interest Self- interest is not necessarily to be

equated with selfi shness ( Duska, 2014 ; Rocha & Ghoshal, 2006 )— that

is to act in the service of one’s self However, self- interest need not be

narrowly focused on the self In love, the well- being of the other becomes

part of the interests of the self As a result, the self becomes enhanced as

one incorporates the other into one’s own sense of self ( Deepak et al.,

2019 ; Fromm, 1961 )

Therefore, love transforms self- interest by bringing us outside of selves When this happens, love becomes a moral emotion ( Velleman,

our-1999 ) Drawing on the Kantian notion of reverence for the other,

Velleman (1999) suggests that when we love, our awareness of the value

of the other “arrests” self- love That is, love for the other “arrests our

tendencies toward emotional self- protection from another person,

ten-dencies to draw ourselves in and close ourselves off from being aff ected

by him Love disarms our emotional defenses; it makes us vulnerable to

the other” (p 361) In this way, when we act out of a genuine

appreci-ation of the value and dignity of the other, we are motivated to treat the

other as an end unto themselves, and not merely as a means toward one’s

own end

Frimer and Walker (2009) advance a similar thesis in their ation model of the development of moral identity They suggest that

reconcili-moral identity develops through the constructive integration of self-

interest and concern for others Contrary to the idea that humans are

pri-marily self- interested beings, it is possible to identify expressions of both

self- interest and concern for others early in life Self- interest, of course, is

easily identifi able in the young infant’s emotional reactions to failures to

meet her biological and physical needs However, infants also show signs

of concern for others early in life Neonates cry in response to hearing

another infant cry, a reaction that is broadly understood to indicate

an early form of empathy ( Stern & Cassidy, 2018 ) Empathy develops

over the course of infancy ( Uzefovsky et al., 2020 ) Infants as young as

8 months of age have been observed in proactive attempts to help others

in simple situations (e.g., retrieving an object unknowingly dropped by

an adult ( Schuhmacher et al., 2019 ) Over the course of development,

children increasingly express concern for others who are in physical and

emotional pain ( Stern & Cassidy, 2018 ; Zahn- Waxler et al., 1983 )

Over the course of early childhood, self- interest and concern for other develop along separate pathways In any given context, children tend to

exhibit either self- interest or concern for others – but not both

simultan-eously With further development, however, children become aware of

circumstances in which self- interest and concern for others come into

con-fl ict ( Hoff mann et al., 2015 ; Killen & Nucci, 1995 ) A child may wish to

keep a toy for the self, but simultaneously be concerned about her friend’s

exclusion In such circumstances, children have diffi culty resolving the

confl ict They tend to vacillate between acting out of self- interest and

concern for the other As children develop into adolescents, they gain

skills for addressing this confl ict In so doing, they can adopt at least three

broad strategies for resolving the tension They can (a) marginalize

con-cern for the other and develop an identity around self- interest, (b)

margin-alize self- interest and move toward a self- less identity organized around

concern for others, or (c) reconcile self- interest and concern for others

In so doing, the developing individual consolidates a moral identity in

which concern for the other becomes part of the interests and values that

defi ne the self

Over the course of development, the process of reconciling self- interest and concern for self produces a moral self that is increasingly defi ned in

terms of systems of virtue – images of the good – that include but extend

beyond the individual concern for self The virtues that defi ne our moral

selves become the values we live by Self- interest becomes transformed It

is in our interest to act out of virtue, care, and love for the other because

those values constitute our sense of who we are To fail to honor them is

to do damage to both self and other

The process of forging a moral identity is restricted neither to childhood nor to individual persons In individuals, the construction of moral iden-

tity is a life- long process While a business is not a person, businesses and

other organizations have cultures, missions, values, and identities Their

practices are organized by their sense of purpose, as well as a shared

sense – however centralized or diff use – of what it means to be a

com-pany The life of a business – like that of an individual – is enhanced

through the process of forging an acting upon a moral identity – by

making virtue and care part of the actual business enterprise itself ( Andr é

& Pache, 2016 ; Bejou, 2011 ) This view, of course, is consistent with that

articulated by Adam Smith (1776) , who argued that self- interest must be

subordinated a broader moral agenda ( Bevan & Werhane, 2015 )

Love within a Tripartite Ethos of Human Enterprise

It is easy to make the case that caring for the needs of employees and

customers is good for business ( Adhariani & Siregar, 2018 ; Bejou, 2011 ;

Bowie, 1991 ) If a business wants to make a profi t, it is necessary to off er

a product or service of value to the customer Leaders who act out of care

for their employees and customers tend to generate loyalty, productivity,

and profi t ( Francis & Keegan, 2020 ; Hill & Watkins, 2009 ) Despite the

validity and lure of these statements, this is not the argument we wish

to make

Instead, we want to call into question common suppositions that locate moral concerns as somehow external to the activities of businesses We seek

to call into question common distinctions such as business versus ethics,

public versus private, self- interest versus love for the other All forms of

social action necessarily occur against the backdrop of inescapable moral

frameworks ( Taylor, 1989 ) As forms of social activity, businesses are

always embedded in socio- moral frameworks In what follows, we argue

that socio- moral issues are not external to business activity, but instead

are foundational components of business activity itself Indeed, the very

assertion that self- interest and the pursuit of profi t are proper motives

for business activity is itself as moral judgment We suggest that moral

concerns are not merely constraints that put limitations on business

activity; they are also positive forces that function to enhance businesses

that transform them into self- sustaining vehicles for promoting human

fl ourishing, including the fl ourishing of the business itself

The most common moral justifi cation for business activity is based on

an ethos of individual rights This includes, of course, the right to pursue

one’s own business agenda by seeking profi ts The focus on the inviolate

rights of individuals is the bedrock of a democratic society However,

while it provides dominant economic ethos in Western culture, it is by no

means the only possible one Haidt and Kesebir (2010) have commented

on what they call the “great narrowing” of moral frameworks in Western

society and moral psychology Traditionally, what constitutes the domain

of moral concerns was quite broad Moral life was variously organized

around concerns of rights, freedom, harm, virtue, character, care,

loy-alty, honor, duty, purity, hierarchy, divinity, taste, and other standards

of strong evaluation We suggest that the range of moral concerns that

are applicable to business and organizations should be extended beyond

the narrow confi nes of economic self- interest As shown in Figure 5.1 ,

at the very least, it is possible to envision business ethos – a core moral

identity – embraces a triad of moral concerns, including considerations

of rights, virtue, and care

Love plays an important role in a tripartite economic ethos It does so in three basic ways First, as discussed above, love for the other plays a role

in “arresting” self- interest The clash between fear for the self and love

for the other fosters the development of a moral self, one that transforms

self- interest to include a concern for the welfare of the  other.  Second,

love plays a direct role in mediating the ethos of care Love implies care

To say that love is the feeling of bestowing value on the other implies

that one cares about the valued other or object In turn, the activity of

extending care to another is a core expression of love Thus, any moral

code that embraces the ethos of care implies the desirability of acting out

of love

The third role of love is both more fundamental and obscure As stated throughout, love is a form of valuing; it is the felt state of bestowing of

value onto some object Moral concerns are forms of strong evaluation

( Taylor, 1989 ) At base, moral concerns involve judgments of what ought

or ought not to exist As forms of strong evaluation, any moral norm is

defi ned in terms of some form of good To the extent that we love that

which is good, love plays a role in each ethos described in Figure 5.1 We

love what is good in ourselves; we love our rights to pursue the good of

happiness; we love virtue And, of course, to act out of care is to act out

of love To the extent that love is the felt sense of valuing something, to

act on the basis of moral values is to act on the basis of some form of love

The Ethos of Rights

An ethos of rights provides the freedom to pursue self- interest and profi t

( Machan, 1995 , 2015 ; Robinson, 1978 ) People have the right to pursue

their own agendas, free from arbitrary intrusion by government or

another social agent The concept of rights is founded upon the idea of

the primacy of the inviolate and bounded individual Individuals are free

to exercise their right to pursue their own self- interest (e.g., profi t), but

in so doing must respect the rights and boundaries of others Although

it is not always acknowledged, within the ethos of rights, rights have

traditionally been understood as implying a set of responsibilities From

this framework, moral and legal rules are necessary primarily to ensure

that businesses honor those responsibilities These include stipulations

that guard against abuse (e.g., that people are paid a fair wage; to

pro-tect the environment) to ensure that businesses do not infringe upon the

rights of others (e.g., ensuring safety, fair prices); that businesses operate

on principles of equality and fairness (e.g., nondiscrimination and sexual

harassment); and to assure that businesses contribute broadly to the

common good (i.e., through tax policy)

Beyond the concept of rights, it is also possible to justify the moral status of self- interest based upon beliefs about its contribution to the

common good For example, the profi t motive is often justifi ed with

ref-erence to the good that free markets can achieve – that free markets are

successful in producing goods and services, increase the general wealth of

the population; and so forth ( Machan, 1995 , 2015 ) Some approaches to

self- interest suggest that self- interest – even selfi shness – needs no moral

Virtues

Excellence Compassion Honesty Prudence Pride

Promote Well-Being of

Employees Customers Associates Community Environment

Rights Freedoms

Choice Profit Privacy Speech

Responsibilities

Equity/Equality Fairness Nondiscrimination Follow Law

Forms

Philautia

Agape Philautia Love of the Good

Agape, Storge Philia

Figure 5.1 A Tripartite Economic Ethos

justifi cation ( Gauthier, 1982 ), that it is both right and good for people

to pursue self- interest simply for the sake of self- interest ( Rand, 1964 )

However, Rand’s analysis not only ignores but also devalues the role of

“love” in the context of businesses and organizations

The Ethos of Virtue

The ethos of virtue is defi ned in terms of conceptions of the good Scholars

have written broadly on the applicability of virtue ethics to business

activity ( Hartman, 2008 ; Klein, 2002 ; Newstead et al., 2019 ) Virtue

ethics has its Western origins in the work of Aristotle, and particularly

the Nicomachean Ethics Virtues consist of forms of moral goodness

While virtues are often understood in terms of the cultivation of virtuous

“traits,” we prefer to think of virtues as representations of goodness

From this point of view, representations of goodness come into play in

the formation of a company’s moral identity

To create a moral identity is to identify a company in terms of a set

of moral virtues or values Beyond self- interest, the moral identity asks,

“what type of organization do we want to be? What is the good thing

to do or be?” ( Mel é , 2009 ) Virtually all businesses and organizations

embrace some series of values, however implicit or loosely defi ned

Within a tripartite economic ethos, the task becomes one of creating ways

to identify the values that defi ne a company and foster a sense of

emo-tional investment in those values among employers and employees alike

While many companies have missions and value statements, it is both

the emotional investment in moral values in the business enterprise itself

that mobilizes action toward a genuine sense of purpose ( Andr é & Pache,

2016 ; Grandy & Sliwa, 2017 ; Ready & Truelove, 2011 )

The Ethos of Care

An ethos of care is organized around promoting the well- being of others

( Gilligan, 1982 ; Held, 2000 ; Simola, 2007 ; Wada, 2014 ), whether those

others are employees, vendors, consumers, social groups, or the nation or

world as a whole ( Mercier & Deslandes, 2020 ; Solomon, 1998 ; Wada,

2014 ) An ethos of care is organized around a suite of interconnected

practices as they are related to a company’s sphere of relations ( Nicholson

& Kurucz, 2019 ; Pavlovich & Krahnke, 2012 ) These include engaging

others with genuine concern, promoting human fl ourishing, respecting

the inherent dignity of employees and customers, responding to

indi-vidual and collective need, and building trusting and collaborative

relationships ( Formentin & Bortree, 2019 ) An ethos of care asks, “what

is the caring, compassionate and even loving thing to do?” ( Karakas &

Sarigollu, 2013 ; Munro & Thanem, 2018 ) Within a business context,

care and compassion mediates the relation between a business’s economic

purpose and the needs of the communities it serves

Three Bottom Lines

Within this triad of values, instead of embracing the right to pursue profi t

as a singular “bottom line,” a tripartite economic ethos holds out the

promise of fostering a more moral marketplace without compromising

self- interest as a core moral concern ( Lin- Hi & Blumberg, 2012 ) By

embracing three categories of “bottom lines” rather than merely one, no

single moral concern need be primary, although each would be necessary

As a result, in organizational decision- making, each moral concern would

exert a constraining infl uence on the other – retaining both shape and

integrity of the tripartite ethos

The tripartite ethos honors the triple bottom line of “people, profi t, and planet.” While “people, profi t, and planet” addresses the categories

of valued resources, the stakeholder approach allows business leaders

and decision- makers to value these resources according to their own

sensibilities and needs Resources of The Commons ( Ostrom, 1999 ) are

valued through economic analysis return on investment (ROI) rather

than through the tripartite ethos For example, a chief executive offi cer

(CEO) could meet the comparative standard of valuing people with a

$15.00 wage One on the surface, such an act would seem responsible –

nudging a family of three over the federal poverty level An organization

that pursues such an act may be viewed quite favorably However, in

terms of caring of the other, it is diffi cult to imagine what type of

exist-ence or lifestyle $30k buys The third element of love would demand a

holistic look at the quality of life and the ability to meet healthcare costs,

and advance economically, if only modestly

The Market Basket Phenomenon

We explore the story of Market Basket as an example of how the three

elements of the tripartite ethos – right, virtues, and care – play a

struc-turing role in the life of an existing and vibrant organization In so doing,

we focus especially on the role of love as a virtue that structures the

social organization and moral identity of an organization Market Basket

began a small family grocer in Lowell, Massachusetts It was founded

by Greek immigrants Athanasios and Efrosine Demoulas In the latter

part of the 19th century, Lowell was a booming manufacturing town

located in an industrial era However, in the early years of the 20th

cen-tury, Lowell struggled economically as manufacturing migrated to other

areas During this time, Lowell remained home to a large and diverse

community of immigrants The fi rst Demoulas business opened in 1917 –

a neighborhood grocerette specializing in meats familiar to the diverse

immigrant communities ( Korschun & Welker, 2015 ) By 2014, the

neigh-borhood market had grown to a regional chain of some 75+ stores and

25,000 employees across Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine

( Company History & Timeline , n.d.) The current and admired CEO

Arthur T Demoulas (“Arthur T.”) demonstrated an uncommon vision

and work ethic Like most of his senior leadership, Arthur T started from

the bottom – beginning with bagging groceries and working in almost

every area of store operation Arthur T never fully shed his humble

roots Even as CEO, he could often be found behind the counter helping

customers during his many visits to the stores under his oversight

According to Korschun and Welker (2015) , the organization’s core values consist of the cultivation of a feeling of family, service to commu-

nity, empowerment, and originality Care for the other is thus “baked- in”

to the culture Decisions are informed by how any operational decisions

and policy changes aff ect people As employees are empowered to “do

what is right” – a leadership philosophy championed by Arthur T and

what Greenleaf (1977) describes as “servant leadership.” According to

Greenleaf (1977) , servant leadership is composed of both leaders who

serve and servants who lead The clarity and integrity of Market Basket’s

care for the other may be considered Market Basket’s single greatest

strength In the summer of 2014, it would function as the spark that

launched the largest non- unionized labor strike in US history This strike

brought employees, managers, suppliers, customers, and the communities

together to save the culture Market Basket that each had built, while also

and preserving the position of their beloved CEO Arthur T Demoulas

“The People Business First, The Grocery Business Second”

The grocery business is known for its paper- thin margins and heavy

com-petition Like most industries, the pressure to adopt new technologies,

adapt to changing consumer habits, and experiment with marketing

gambits would seem irresistible At a minimum, one might expect a

family business to lose strength in competition with international chains

However, Market Basket would not only resist these competitive forces,

it would often perform better in some of the most diffi cult areas of

per-formance Since assuming leadership, Arthur T has led Market Basket

through signifi cant growth and profi tability – increasing the number of

locations and outpacing competitors such as Stop and Shop, Shaw’s, and

Hannaford – each owned by large multinationals ( Korschun & Welker,

2015 ) Customers were happy as well: Market Basket earned the number

seven spot in Consumer Reports among the nation’s largest competitors

(2012, p 2) – and continues to hold onto top national rankings ( Stanger,

n d.) It off ers items at much lower prices than its competitors While an

average grocery store averages 15,746 customer transactions per week,

Market Basket averages 26,000 per store – countering lower margins

with the earned loyalty of their customers ( Korschun & Welker, 2015 )

In 2018, Market Basket and Trader Joes ranked in the top six nationally

for competitive pricing Importantly, Market Basket diff ers on another

important element of any business – its people Lower labor costs are one

way in which businesses can protect their profi ts However, Market Basket