Motivate workers by setting sights high, but keep incentive programs attainable - Opinion

Let's face it: The majority of incentive programs aimed at foodservice workers typically do not work. If they did, employee turnover would not be notoriously high.

Incentive plans are created to align the employees' goals with those of management, but many attempts are often short-lived and quickly forgotten.

Managers and executive chefs are pressured to keep food costs, liquor costs and labor costs within their respective budgeted levels. That is no easy task since it takes the full commitment of the work team to achieve those goals each period.

The executive chef may be a quality manager, but if cooks are overportioning meat or allowing food to spoil, those infamous cost indicators rise. To compensate for higher costs, restaurants raise prices, reduce labor and, potentially, lose customers.

Incentive programs should keep workers motivated, productive and cost conscious. However, programs often fail because goals seem beyond the employees' control and monitoring and tracking such programs become burdensome to management. A successful plan needs to be attainable and measurable and also easily understood by all participants. What good is an incentive that nobody attempts to reach?

I have seen many incentive plans fail. And the one thing they had in common was that they were directed by management from the top down. Such a structure only perpetuates the "us versus them" dynamic that already exists between employees and managers and does little to help "them" hit their numbers.

While foodservice workers operate as a team, most look out for their own interests first and foremost. One of the most significant observations I made while working in restaurants is the power of peer pressure among the employees. For example, if one employee is being lazy and getting away with it, others quickly become resentful and take some form of action to curb that imbalance. Singled-out individuals know they better get with the program or they will be ostracized.

Managers easily can implement simple incentive plans that channel those peer-pressure forces as the backbone, resulting in plans that monitor themselves and empower employees to excel. The following suggestions illustrate how to capture peer pressure to reduce food cost.

(1) Identify the products that account for the highest costs. Assign each product to a particular employee. For example, one person from the kitchen staff would be responsible for red meat, another for fish and another for fryer oil.

(2) Give each employee a cost-reduction goal and the task of monitoring that one item or food group for a fixed period of time.

(3) Reward individuals if they meet or exceed their goal.

That is what I call managing from the inside-out. The plan relies on the peer pressure already present in the environment and uses it to influence and monitor behavior.

If I were responsible for french fries, for example, I would verbally punish any employee I caught eating my fries or wasting product. The person in charge of fish would ensure that another employee fabricating that product will do so to the best of their ability and produce a high yield and little waste. Remember: Employees often are more concerned about the opinions and judgments of their peers than those of their superiors.

In addition to cost savings, employees respond positively to the added responsibility and enjoy increased involvement in the restaurant's operations. They learn how to order optimal quantities of products, how to handle them most effectively and how to curb waste and pilferage.

By rotating product responsibilities every few periods, employees gain a better overall understanding of the operation and learn from one another, thus reinforcing the team approach. That strategy is not limited to kitchen workers and can be implemented in the front-of-the-house, bakeshops and other departments of foodservice facilities.

Managers benefit as employees become conscious of costs and learn to appreciate the products. Food is handled better, resulting in less waste and mitigation of the risk of spoilage and food-borne illnesses. And, finally, costs are minimized, and employees gain a sense of ownership and importance, which helps to limit turnover.

If the results are produced accurately and quickly and the reward is paid out in the same manner, that plan will continue to operate on its own. Most important, a successful incentive plan keeps employees proactive and aligns their best interests with the profitability of the operation.

Scott Levine is a foodservice consultant and principal of FoodService Advocates LLC in Arlington, Va. He can be reached at slevine@fsadvocates.com.

COPYRIGHT 2003 Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group