Triangle in a restaurant

In the workplace there can be a standard principal-agent relationship or a more realistic triangle relationship. In this triangle, the agent deals with two different principals. This occurs mostly in situations where the agent has multiple interests. For example as a salesman, one goal is to sell as much as possible and the other goal is to satisfy the buyer. My experience with the triangle principal-agent model comes from my job as a waiter in a restaurant.

During the last year of my high school and before my gap year, I worked in a restaurant in Utrecht. In general, the main goal of my boss was to make as much revenue as possible. During my first working days I was taught how to be a good waiter and what they expected of me. I experienced that I had multiple interest as a waiter.

The main goal was to satisfy the guests as good as possible. Nowadays review scores and social media are very important in order to attract new costumers, thus good service is important. The costumers expect good service of a waiter and in principle I tried to offer the best service I could. The incentive of working harder for tips isn’t great in The Netherlands. Tipping doesn’t have to be done by a costumer and if it’s done it is often around the 10 percent.

The other principal was my boss who expected me to provide good service to the costumers, however after a while it became clear that he more cared about making maximum revenue as possible. For me as a waiter there were several strategies that were beneficial in order to maximize revenue.
During busy days such as weekends, it was important to be fast en efficient. Instead of having 2 different costumers groups at one table during one night, we should have 3 or even 4 groups at one table during the night. So when one group of costumers finished eating, we needed to give them the bill as soon as possible to be able to get the next group of customers at the table after. Often this didn’t lead to the best service that I wanted to offer to the guests.
Another strategy was to be economically ‘smart’. An example is the case when costumers asked for water. In that case, I had to serve them bottled water instead of tap water because this raised the bill. Another example is also very common namely the recommendations of the waiters. When costumers asked me about wines or about food, I had to recommend the more expensive wines or food instead of the cheapest ones. Most of these more expensive items were better, however this wasn’t the case for every item. Thus, maximum satisfaction for the costumers were blocked by the coercion to get maximum revenue.


After all, I found that this kind of catering industry didn’t really fit me. I hated to put costumers under a kind of pressure to order the more expensive items and to get them out as quick as possible after finishing their food. I tried to fulfill the expectation of both the principals, but this was hard in some situations. Often I satisfied one master –my boss- because I had to in order to keep the job, while the other principal –the costumer- suffered because of this. I enjoyed my work as a waiter especially because I had nice colleagues, however I don’t think I will ever work in a restaurant again.  

Comments

  1. This post is late, which is unlike you. I gather you were elsewhere for a while. I hope you can catch up for the next week or so.

    In English the word is customer. I'm surprised you didn't get feedback from the spell check about it.

    The triangle part, it seems, was only in the information given about menu items. I didn't otherwise see how your efforts to please the owner transferred into making the experience worse for your customers. However, I wonder how the owner monitored you and if that monitoring became obvious to the customers. That could matter to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The most interesting part of this post to me was the comparison in the way people tip waiters in Amsterdam as opposed to the United States. In the US, tipping also isn't usually required, but it is socially expected that you tip at least 15% in most cases. It sounds like the process in Amsterdam is less strict and more up to the customer to make tipping decisions. I think that that could exacerbate the problems from this potential triangle arrangement. You would want to give your best service to each customer and allow them to take as much time as possible in order to elicit a favorable gratuity, but your boss might've expected you to push customers through the restaurant more quickly so that more people could be fed and the restaurant would make more money. One way that this triangle arrangement could be avoided that many restaurants and bars do, is share tips amongst the wait staff at the end of the night. That way, each waiter or waitress would receive an equal share of the gratuities for the night and could better focus on the goals of the boss and restaurant itself rather than their own goal of receiving a good gratuity. I wonder what your former employer thought about this common strategy?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gift exchange is everywhere

Illinibucks options

Decisions for the future