Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: Real Life Restaurant Example, What Would You Do?
Marcy worked at the local diner where there were twenty tables and three other waitresses. Marcy’s tables were always full while the other three waitresses sometimes had patrons and sometimes did not. This irritated the other waitresses, so they asked the owner to reassign the tables. He did, but soon everything was back like before.
This really irritated the other servers, so they asked the owner to rotate the tables every day. He did, but now the patrons would come in, point to each table and when Marcy would nod, they would have a seat at one of her stations. The owner too was getting irritated at all the bickering and called the servers in. The three all said Marcy was cheating the system. Marcy said she was only serving the patrons.
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject:
If I had not done so previously, I would observe what was going on in the dining room. If I found that Marcy was doing her job, but the others were not, I would openly praise Marcy for the great job she was doing. I want the others to hear this. I would also praise them for any positive changes they made. Reward what you want done.
I’d have a meeting with everybody to let them know what was expected from them. If this is a case of them not knowing, then some schooling would be in order. If it is a case of the other waitresses not caring I would explain the benefits, for them, of doing the job correctly. If they are unwilling to change then I would get some new waitresses.
Knowledge I can give them, aptitude I can build upon, but I can only do so much for a poor attitude. It is my job to remove as many stumbling blocks as possible.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:59 pm Post subject:
Hi Dave,
Dave wrote:
If I had not done so previously, I would observe what was going on in the dining room. If I found that Marcy was doing her job, but the others were not, I would openly praise Marcy for the great job she was doing. I want the others to hear this. I would also praise them for any positive changes they made. Reward what you want done.
That could work, but it could also backfire, causing more friction between the work force.
Dave wrote:
I’d have a meeting with everybody to let them know what was expected from them. If this is a case of them not knowing, then some schooling would be in order. If it is a case of the other waitresses not caring I would explain the benefits, for them, of doing the job correctly. If they are unwilling to change then I would get some new waitresses.
Knowledge I can give them, aptitude I can build upon, but I can only do so much for a poor attitude. It is my job to remove as many stumbling blocks as possible.
The meeting might help, but I think there's even more here. There is still another aspect I hope will come out. Firing might be considered the ultimate solution, but there is a huge cost, especially in the case of the auto repair business. It would also tend to overlook something bigger, in my opinion. Thanks Dave, I appreciate your input and sorry to pick on you
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject:
louis wrote:
Thanks Dave, I appreciate your input and sorry to pick on you
I am young and foolish, so I will get over it.
I am waiting for this to develop so I can learn. Over the years I have been in several different lower level management positions, but never progress past that. I think that working with people (employees) is something I need to learn more about.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject:
Dave wrote:
louis wrote:
Thanks Dave, I appreciate your input and sorry to pick on you
I am young and foolish, so I will get over it.
I am waiting for this to develop so I can learn. Over the years I have been in several different lower level management positions, but never progress past that. I think that working with people (employees) is something I need to learn more about.
Thanks Dave, I think you are to be commended for speaking up.
This organization seems to show a high level of unhealthy internal competition. The competition is geared toward keeping things at the status-quo rather than improving. This is a clear example of a lack of leadership, in my opinion. It is clear that personal interest comes before the common interest of the business. Has anyone seen this in the auto repair trade?
Because clients seem to favor Marcy's approach, she is seen as a competitor, in this organization. There is no emphasis on improvement, only turf protection. This false sense of competition is normally reinforced by an inappropriate reward system that creates an artificial scarcity of reward.
People in organizations that lack leadership [no aim] tend to concentrate more and more on things of less and less importance to the client. They become quite inwardly focused. In a more healthy organization, the other three might try to learn from Marcy. If this is not possible they might assume support roles, allowing the team as a whole to serve the clients better.
What might the owner [we] do to help develop such an organization?
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject:
louis wrote:
This organization seems to show a high level of unhealthy internal competition. The competition is geared toward keeping things at the status-quo rather than improving. This is a clear example of a lack of leadership, in my opinion. It is clear that personal interest comes before the common interest of the business. Has anyone seen this in the auto repair trade?
Because clients seem to favor Marcy's approach, she is seen as a competitor, in this organization. There is no emphasis on improvement, only turf protection. This false sense of competition is normally reinforced by an inappropriate reward system that creates an artificial scarcity of reward.
Please explain the last sentence, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
louis wrote:
People in organizations that lack leadership [no aim] tend to concentrate more and more on things of less and less importance to the client. They become quite inwardly focused. In a more healthy organization, the other three might try to learn from Marcy. If this is not possible they might assume support roles, allowing the team as a whole to serve the clients better.
What might the owner [we] do to help develop such an organization?
I have no idea.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:50 am Post subject:
Dave wrote:
louis wrote:
This organization seems to show a high level of unhealthy internal competition. The competition is geared toward keeping things at the status-quo rather than improving. This is a clear example of a lack of leadership, in my opinion. It is clear that personal interest comes before the common interest of the business. Has anyone seen this in the auto repair trade?
Because clients seem to favor Marcy's approach, she is seen as a competitor, in this organization. There is no emphasis on improvement, only turf protection. This false sense of competition is normally reinforced by an inappropriate reward system that creates an artificial scarcity of reward.
Please explain the last sentence, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Great question! This goes a little deep and may require a long explanation, sorry, but here goes: It starts with the widely accepted premise that competition is always the best way. This is largely accepted, particularly in Western society. Competition has its place and can be very good. There are also times when cooperation is more important or at least a better tool.
An example is a family. Few sane people would wish their children to compete for their affection. Yet this happens in many instances and is akin to the problem above. People tend to compete when there is a limited supply [scarcity] and cooperate when there is adequate supply. Even Animals [of a common species] rarely compete for water at the watering hole, yet they fiercely compete for food.
Poor managers often see competition as the only way to get things done. It’s much easier to set everyone against each other than to coach every person to their full potential and encourage cooperation. This is often accomplished by creating false scarcity. In the example of the parent above, this may be conditional affection. Withholding affection from children unless they act as desired, showing favoritism, etc. There is strong evidence that this creates all sorts of insecurities. There is no scarcity of affection in reality, only what has been created.
In business, there is no scarcity of improvement [reward,] everyone may improve service every day. The problem comes in when management sets the reward and makes it limited. For instance “top tech;” there can only be one top tech, thus the scarcity and internal competition. Flat rate, highest hours, etc. this will tend to decrease cooperation and increase internal competition.
As a team the waitresses might all earn more, as the clients would be much happier. Each competing, they may actually try to sabotage the efforts of the others. They want Marcy to have fewer patrons, so they might have more. Rather, they might cooperate to increase the number of patrons so that all may have more.
Dave wrote:
louis wrote:
People in organizations that lack leadership [no aim] tend to concentrate more and more on things of less and less importance to the client. They become quite inwardly focused. In a more healthy organization, the other three might try to learn from Marcy. If this is not possible they might assume support roles, allowing the team as a whole to serve the clients better.
What might the owner [we] do to help develop such an organization?
I have no idea.
First may be being cooperative. I have seen service writers standing idle while techs wasted time standing in line for parts. Why not fetch the parts for them? The writer may only do as good as his techs? Second is to change the reward system to eliminate artificial scarcity. Eliminate employee of the month, Prizes, Perks and rewards for things that do not benefit the client.
I was once in an extremely busy restaurant where the manager was bussing tables; It needed doing and he was available. It was also some of the finest service I have ever received, coincidence?
Bosses produce motion. Leaders produce concentrated effort toward the ultimate aim. A shop may compete fiercely for market share, with every member of staff totally cooperating within the organization. Work to eliminate internal competition and foster cooperation so that all may have more.
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 206 Location: Camp Verde, AZ
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject:
louis wrote:
Great question! This goes a little deep and may require a long explanation, sorry, but here goes: It starts with the widely accepted premise that competition is always the best way. This is largely accepted, particularly in Western society. Competition has its place and can be very good. There are also times when cooperation is more important or at least a better tool.
An example is a family. Few sane people would wish their children to compete for their affection. Yet this happens in many instances and is akin to the problem above. People tend to compete when there is a limited supply [scarcity] and cooperate when there is adequate supply. Even Animals [of a common species] rarely compete for water at the watering hole, yet they fiercely compete for food.
Poor managers often see competition as the only way to get things done. It’s much easier to set everyone against each other than to coach every person to their full potential and encourage cooperation. This is often accomplished by creating false scarcity. In the example of the parent above, this may be conditional affection. Withholding affection from children unless they act as desired, showing favoritism, etc. There is strong evidence that this creates all sorts of insecurities. There is no scarcity of affection in reality, only what has been created.
In business, there is no scarcity of improvement [reward,] everyone may improve service every day. The problem comes in when management sets the reward and makes it limited. For instance “top tech;” there can only be one top tech, thus the scarcity and internal competition. Flat rate, highest hours, etc. this will tend to decrease cooperation and increase internal competition.
As a team the waitresses might all earn more, as the clients would be much happier. Each competing, they may actually try to sabotage the efforts of the others. They want Marcy to have fewer patrons, so they might have more. Rather, they might cooperate to increase the number of patrons so that all may have more.
This is an interesting concept. I had always considered competition as a way to bring out the best in the different people. But now that you mention it I can see the other side. If the same person or team is always number 1, after a while the others quit trying.
_________________ David Wittmayer
Owner / Manager
Hansen Enterprises Fleet Repair, LLC
Camp Verde, AZ
www.hefrshop.com
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:52 am Post subject:
Dave wrote:
This is an interesting concept. I had always considered competition as a way to bring out the best in the different people. But now that you mention it I can see the other side. If the same person or team is always number 1, after a while the others quit trying.
Hi Dave,
This only scratches the surface. Competition can bring out the best in people. A person may compete everyday to exceed their previous best. The team may compete to accomplish the aim. Do a better job, do it in less time, provide new benefits.
The problem is when members of the team begins to compete with each other. Internal competition is unhealthy, as a team, to be best, must function as one. The quarterback may get the credit, but the receivers, the guards even those running evasive patterns made it happen.
With poor/no leadership, people may each try to maximize their own accomplishment. The team falls short because of sub-optimization. One tech struggles with a problem that another might easily solve. Why? Because to hand it off would mean failure in a competitive environment. This is foolish.
A leader establishes the aim and assigns task to those best qualified. Each person contributes and each person shares in more gain because of it. The aim of a guided missel cruiser may be "bombs on target." The mess hands have a part, the same as the captain. Many shops have the mess hands firing the rockets and the captain scurrying around in the mess because everyone is starving.
“A society that does not revere it’s plumbers as well as it’s philosophers will have poor philosophy and bad plumbing.”
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:51 pm Post subject:
Eric J. wrote:
Quote:
“A society that does not revere it’s plumbers as well as it’s philosophers will have poor philosophy and bad plumbing.”
What does this mean?
Hi Eric,
To me it means there is as much value in a technician's job, done well as any other job that exist. I feel a company that does not realize this and make it plainly visible by their actions will likely not attract nor retain great techs.
Each person in a company must be proud to do the job they do best. I feel this starts with management demonstrating that each job is equally important. Internal competition for advancement is a problem. Perhaps advancement needs to be re-defined as being the best there is at what we do rather than a job title? Compensation too needs to be based on quality of contribution more so than job description, in my opinion.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 30 Location: Bluefield, WV
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:51 am Post subject:
louis wrote:
Compensation too needs to be based on quality of contribution more so than job description, in my opinion.
Okay that makes sense to me. What do you mean by the statement above. On my present job I had to move to a service manager position even though I really prefer being a tech because I could make more money. Other techs have left because there was no where for them to make more.
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:
Eric J. wrote:
louis wrote:
Compensation too needs to be based on quality of contribution more so than job description, in my opinion.
Okay that makes sense to me. What do you mean by the statement above. On my present job I had to move to a service manager position even though I really prefer being a tech because I could make more money. Other techs have left because there was no where for them to make more.
Hi Eric,
I think it is natural for every person to wish to advance in their career. The word advance may be the key, in my opinion. Certainly making more money may be considered advancing. More prestige, more say about the way things are run and many people feel a new title or different duties.
For instance, many techs seem to see a service manager job as an advancement. I don't see it that way. The skills of a tech are certainly as valuable if not more so. A great tech is far more valuable than a mediocre service manager. Yet there may be that perception.
I think this comes from a perversion in our society that seems to value people who work with their hands less than those who do not. While a shop cannot change society in general, it clearly can change its internal society. Such thinking is mistaken and should be recognized as such, in my opinion.
This can be done in countless ways, if anyone is interested I will go into more detail. Thanks for asking Eric, I appreciate your participation.
Joined: 17 May 2008 Posts: 6 Location: Lansing, IL, USA
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject:
One thing I noticed after reading this post is that nobody mentioned the lack of enough patrons to support all these waitresses!! If one is always at full capacity and everybody likes her then I'd keep her.
However many clients she services I'd keep only enough waitresses to serve that many clients per waitress. Then all the clients would go to Marcy and when all her tables were full they could either wait, go home, or pick another waitress. I'd make sure the waitress(es) I kept around were on board with learning how to have the same level of customer satisfaction as Marcy. I'd then look for ways to bring the restaurant to full capacity since i'd now have some kind of customer satisfaction tracking program in place and all the waitresses would be compensated somehow for their quality of customer satisfaction. Isn't that all a business really sells anyway? I worked at a small chev. dealer w/ this exact same problem. I was the new guy nobody requested and Adam was the guy who grew up in town and everybody requested. Problem was, there wasn't enough work for both of us. Who'd blame the customer for picking somebody they knew. The manager wasn't doing his job of marketing the shop for new biz, the writer wasn't doing her job by making sure my abilities were reinforced, she would actually advise people to wait for Adam if that's who they wanted. The only one doing their job was the owner, who fired every manager who didn't meet his sales goals. Problem was, none of the managers were allowed to spend any money on marketing or were given the ability to change the things they needed to. Needless to say it didn't take long before I got the boot and they hired the next new low bookng scapegoat tech. Anyway, same type of problem, I think.
_________________ Jason Brennan
CEO
Fine Tune, Inc.
Lansing, IL, USA
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:21 am Post subject:
Hi Jason,
I think you bring out some interesting points, I will try to respond to each with my thoughts.
jbrenn77 wrote:
One thing I noticed after reading this post is that nobody mentioned the lack of enough patrons to support all these waitresses!! If one is always at full capacity and everybody likes her then I'd keep her.
However many clients she services I'd keep only enough waitresses to serve that many clients per waitress. Then all the clients would go to Marcy and when all her tables were full they could either wait, go home, or pick another waitress.
If the aim were to optimize individual waitresses, that will work. Suppose instead the aim is to make a better profit by serving the client. Now the responsibility falls to management to learn what the problem may be. I think if the restaurant were merely over-staffed, all waitresses [techs?] would be equally without clients. This is not the case, so it appears something is different with Marcy.
She may offer something(s) the patrons want that the others do not or she may not do something(s) the patron does not want that the others do. In either case, may learning why be more profitable if it can be employed across the team?
jbrenn77 wrote:
I'd make sure the waitress(es) I kept around were on board with learning how to have the same level of customer satisfaction as Marcy. I'd then look for ways to bring the restaurant to full capacity since I’d now have some kind of customer satisfaction tracking program in place and all the waitresses would be compensated somehow for their quality of customer satisfaction. Isn't that all a business really sells anyway?
Customer satisfaction is indeed what a business sells and I feel this is right on target. The only thoughts I would add are:
If the true problem were known, perhaps all waitresses might be improved even to levels exceeded Marcy’s current performance, (i.e., not likely but Marcy may be the least offensive option at this time.)
I think a very effective client-satisfaction tracking program exist in all businesses. That is: Does the business have all the clients it can serve and is it making the desired profit? For managers that like numbers, perhaps dollars-spent marketing to maintain desired backlog.
Practically all waitresses are also compensated based on what managers suppose is client satisfaction vis-à-vis the tipping system. I have always felt this encourages internal competition between staff rather than cooperation. In a relationship such as waitress/patron there is little actual harm other than it may be less effective than another system. The patron does not depend heavily on the waitress for unbiased advise and generally knows how much they care to eat.
jbrenn77 wrote:
I worked at a small chev. dealer w/ this exact same problem. I was the new guy nobody requested and Adam was the guy who grew up in town and everybody requested. Problem was, there wasn't enough work for both of us. Who'd blame the customer for picking somebody they knew.
I am not sure this is the same problem, though time on the job could definitely be a factor. The post does not state how long any waitress has been on staff, though I think it unlikely three would all be new. I do believe this is an excellent point and one management would need to address.
One thing people like is familiarity particularly when they feel they are presently getting good results. I find too, people often like trying something new. If results are as good or better they are also likely to adapt to new. I think a great deal depends on the way the business presents the situation.
jbrenn77 wrote:
The manager wasn't doing his job of marketing the shop for new biz, the writer wasn't doing her job by making sure my abilities were reinforced, she would actually advise people to wait for Adam if that's who they wanted.
Truly a problem and one a new employee may not be able to overcome. This is a sad example of internal competition, in my opinion.
jbrenn77 wrote:
The only one doing their job was the owner, who fired every manager who didn't meet his sales goals. Problem was, none of the managers were allowed to spend any money on marketing or were given the ability to change the things they needed to. Needless to say it didn't take long before I got the boot and they hired the next new low bookng scapegoat tech.
Doesn’t sound like the owner has fired the right guy yet. The use of the term “scapegoat” is quite interesting. I connotes a blame-oriented organization, rather than one in search of solutions. People are rarely the problem in such an organization; No matter how many are fired the enterprise normally continues to be substandard. If the problem remains constant and the people continue to change, perhaps it is time to look at would has not changed [management?]
jbrenn77 wrote:
Anyway, same type of problem, I think.
I think both are definitely a problem with a poor level of management. I find it ridiculous how many businesses “play” one employee against another. They constantly create heros and scapegoats. Often there is that one superstar and the also-rans. The superstar is where they are because they milk the system and the also-ran where they are largely to support the superstar. I think this is silly. Why not build a team of stars, where everyone’s abilities are maximized?
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject:
Hi Jason,
jbrenn77 wrote:
Loius,
I think you are right about internal competition being bad. What, in this post's situation, would be an example of how to eliminate this?
Many managers confuse competition of the team, which can be helpful, with competition within the team, which is almost always detrimental. The manager sets the tone and internal competition normally exist because they encourage it. This might be direct, as in contest; employee of the month, bonus for the top salesperson, charts, graphs, gold stars, etc. The point is, the manager creates an artificial scarcity, there can be only one winner.
More indirectly, the silent treatment for low performers, snide remarks, lavish praise of “the favorite,” extra privileges and so on.
Healthy competition might be each staff member knowing how and having the information to track their own performance. Each person competes with their own previous best, for continual improvement. There is no scarcity of improvement as quality is a journey, not a destination.
Perhaps most unfortunate [and non-understandable] of all are managers who actually compete with their own staff. I have seen this on multiple occasions, but can see no logical explanation. This is the person trying to prove they can do anything better than everyone else. In actuality the proverbial cards are normally stacked in their favor as they are the dealer of the cards.
A wise man once wrote of “A house divided . . .” With cooperation every staff member compensates for the weaknesses [yes we all have them ] of the others. The result, five people produce the effort of perhaps eight, rather than five producing the effort of three, which is more common.
I also thought your example was excellent, with the new person being forced to compete or leave. What a waste! Why not introduce the new person to all clients. Tell them about his qualifications, how proud and fortunate the company feels to have him. The enthusiasm would likely come across and give the new person a great chance to win clients over. An effective marketing campaign, announcing faster service because of our increased staff, might provide enough work for both people. I think it would be a sound investment for a company that stands to double it’s service income. Thanks Jason, I appreciate your insight.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
