1. Restaurant Operations at Samouel’s Restaurant: Improving Relations with Employees and Customers
Research conducted for:
Phil Samouel, Samouel’s Greek Cuisine
Research conducted by:
AdMark International Business Research Group

2. Initial Symptoms: Samouel's Restaurant Inadequate Revenue.
Inadequate Profit.
100% Annual Employee Turnover.
Need to Attract New Customers.

3. Two Studies in One Employee Survey: Customer Survey:
Focus on attracting and keeping customers.
Customer Survey:
Focus on increasing employee commitment and maximizing productivity.

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Customer Hypotheses: Samouel's Restaurant Samouel's Restaurant GINO'S
CH1: Samouel’s customers report higher satisfaction than do Gino’s customers.
CH2: Customer perceptions of restaurant employees are related positively to customer satisfaction.
Samouel's Restaurant
VS.
GINO'S

8. Customer Hypotheses: Samouel's Restaurant
CH3: Customer perceptions of restaurant atmosphere are related positively to customer satisfaction.
CH4: Customer perceptions of food quality are related positively to customer satisfaction.

9. Research Methods: Employee Study
63 Samouel’s Employees Sampled.
off premises.
employees Not “Identified”.
General Social-Psychological Measures Used for:
work environment variables.
such as organizational commitment.
work outcome characteristics.
such as quitting intention.

10. Research Methods: Customer Study
Two Samples:
Samouel’s Customers.
Gino’s Customers.
200 usable responses obtained from 230 total / 100 for each.
Measures:
7-Point Likert scales assess:
Ratings of evaluative criteria;
Outcomes: Satisfaction and intention to return.

11. Results: Employee Study
EH1: Intention to Search Results.
Full versus part-time.
Part-time workers are more likely to search.

12. EH1: Age and Search Intentions
Search intentions become lower with age!

13. EH1: Gender and Search Intentions
Men are more likely to search for another job!

14. EH1: Search Intentions by Years of Employment
Newer employees are more likely to search for another job!

15. 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

16. Caution:
Negative team functioning – loyalty relationship based on regression coefficient may be misleading.
All correlations are positive.
Further examination required.

17. Results: Customer Study Hypothesis Summary
Samouel's Restaurant
Results: Customer Study Hypothesis Summary
VS.
GINO'S
Relative Satisfaction.
Determinants of Customer Satisfaction.
Effect of Atmosphere on Satisfaction.
Effect of Food Quality on Satisfaction.

18. Comparative Performance
All differences but variety are significant.
Notice Samouel’s is cleaner, has a nicer interior, and is more fun to go to.

19. CH1: Customer Satisfaction is higher at Samouel’s?
Who is happiest?
Gino!
Customers more satisfied with Samouel’s
= no support!
5.96 compared to 4.76.
t = (p< .001)

20. Customer Satisfaction at Gino’s: Regression Results
Variables together “explain” satisfaction.
Variables “explanatory” power:
X1 – 1st
X10 – 2nd
X2 is not significant.
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 R2
.261
F = 11.3

21. Customer Satisfaction at Samouel’s: Regression Results
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 R2
.440
F = 25.2
Variables together “explain” satisfaction.
Variables’ “Explanatory” Power:
X10 – 1st
X1 – 2nd
X2 – 3rd

22. Conclusions: Employees
Employees with higher
turnover likelihood:
Younger
Part-time
Male
Supervisory approach is good.
Work group functioning is not good.

23. 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.

24. Recommendations: Samouel's Restaurant
Provide Additional Training Opportunities for Employees.
Hire Employees 25 and Over.
Hire an “Executive Chef” – improve the food quality.
Promote the importance of a clean, attractive and fun atmosphere.

25. 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…

26. Finally . . . Thanks for the opportunity to help Samouel’s.
Please ask any questions!