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!