restaurant operations at samouel’s restaurant: improving relations with employees and customers...
TRANSCRIPT
Restaurant Operations at Samouel’s Restaurant: Improving Relations with Employees and Customers
Research conducted for: Phil SamouelSamouel’s Greek Cusine
Research conducted by: Joseph F. Hair, Ph.D. AdMark International Business Research Group
Initial Symptoms:
Inadequate Revenue. Inadequate Profit. 100% Annual Employee Turnover. Need to Attract New Customers.
Two Studies in One
Employee Survey: Focus on attracting and keeping
customers. Customer Survey:
Focus on increasing employee commitment and maximizing productivity.
Overall Research Questions
Employee Study: RQ1: Are employees being managed
to maximize their productivity as well as commitment to the success of the restaurant?
Customer Study: RQ2: What are the ways to keep and
grow the existing customer base and to attract new customers?
Employee Survey Hypotheses: EH1
EH1: Employee work status, age and gender are related to intentions to job search. Should consider the search intentions of:
part-time workers younger employees men
Employee Research Hypotheses
EH2: Employee perceptions of supervisory style are positively related to organizational commitment.
EH3: Employee perceptions of work group functioning are positively related to organizational commitment.
Customer Hypotheses:
CH1: Samouel’s customers report higher satisfaction than do Gino’s customers.
CH2: Customer perceptions of restaurant employees are related positively to customer satisfaction.
VS.
Customer Hypotheses:
CH3: Customer perceptions of restaurant atmosphere are related positively to customer satisfaction.
CH4: Customer perceptions of food quality are related positively to customer satisfaction.
Research Methods: Employee Study
63 Samouel’s Employees Sampled. off premises. paid $5.00. employees Not “Identified”.
General Social-Psychological Measures Used for: work environment variables.
such as organizational commitment. work outcome characteristics.
such as quitting intention.
Research Methods: Customer Study
Two Samples: Samouel’s Customers. Gino’s Customers.
200 usable responses obtained from 230 total/ 100 for each.
Measures: 10 Point Likert scales assess:
Ratings of evaluative criteria; Outcomes: Satisfaction and intention to
return.
Results: Employee Study
EH1: Intention to Search Results. Full versus part-time.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Full-Time Part-Time
Full-Time Part-Time
Part-time workers are more likely to search.
EH1: Age and Search Intentions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
18-25 26-34 35-49 50-59
Search intentions become lower with age!
EH1: Gender and Search Intentions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Men Women
Men are more likely to search for another job!
EH1: Search Intentions by Years of Employment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years Over 3 years
Newer employees are more likely to search for another job!
EH2: Supervisory Style and Organizational Commitment: Regression Results
Model Explains Loyalty (X13) R2 = .41, F =
13.4, p < .001 Work Group
Cooperation and Training affect Loyalty positively.
Team Functioning negatively?
Work Group Variable:
β t Sig. Mean
X14 Cooper-ation
.579 3.40 .001 3.89
X8 – Team
-.355 -2.01 .049 3.41
X11 – Training
3.96 2.69 .009 3.57
Caution: Negative team
functioning – loyalty relationship based on regression coefficient may be misleading. All correlations are
positive. Study further.
Results: Customer Study Hypothesis Summary
1. Relative Satisfaction.2. Determinants of Customer
Satisfaction.3. Effect of Atmosphere on Satisfaction.4. Effect of Food Quality on Satisfaction.
VS.
Comparative Performance
1
2
3
4
5
6
FoodQuality
InteriorPortions Taste Value Friendly Clean Fun Variety Prices
Gino'sSamouel's
1. All differences but variety are significant.
2. Notice Samouel’s is cleaner, has a nicer interior, and is more fun to go to.
CH1: Customer Satisfaction is higher at Samouel’s?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Gino's Samouel's
Gino's Samouel's
Gino!
• Customers more satisfied with Samouel’s
= no support!
• 5.96 compared to 4.76.
t = -7.79 (p< .001)
Who is happiest?
Variable: β t p
X1 – Food Quality (CH4)
.512 4.86 .001
X2- Interior Attractive (CH3)
.034 0.37 .368
X10-Comp. Employees (CH2)
.373 3.54 .001
R2 .261 F = 11.3
.001
Customer Satisfaction at Gino’s: Regression Results
Variables together “explain” satisfaction.
Variables “explanatory” power:
X1 – 1st
X10 – 2nd
X2 is not significant.
Customer Satisfaction at Samouel’s: Regression Results
Variables together “explain” satisfaction.
Variables’ “Explanatory” Power: X10 – 1st
X1 – 2nd
X2 – 3rd
Variable: β t p
X1 – Food Quality (CH4)
.301 3.50 .001
X2- Interior Attractive (CH3)
.158 1.88 .063
X10-Comp. Employees (CH2)
.395 4.72 .001
R2 .440 F = 25.2
.001
Conclusions: Employees
Employees with higher turnover likelihood:
Younger Part-time Male
Supervisory approach is good. Work group functioning is not good.
Conclusions: Customers
Gino’s customers are more satisfied. Gino’s food is higher quality. Gino’s employees are rated better.
Samouel’s customers’ satisfaction affected by: Food quality, attractiveness of interior, and
friendly employees. Gino’s customers’ satisfaction affected by:
food quality and employee friendliness.
Recommendations:
1. Provide Additional Training Opportunities for Employees.
2. Hire Employees 25 and Over.3. Hire an “Executive Chef” – improve
the food quality.4. Promote the importance of a clean,
attractive and fun atmosphere.
Limitations
Samples are limited. many more restaurant competitors –
each with potentially unique customers and employees.
Questionnaires do not cover all important topics. many more issues to be studied, such
as compensation systems, full versus part-time, price sensitivities…
Finally . . .
Thanks for the opportunity to help Samouel’s.
Please ask any questions!