According to this analysis, from the perspective of management, our basic principle is to solve the problem and reverse the status quo. As for the specific measures, it is not necessary to attack both the chef and the manager. The best way is to unite one and attack another according to the actual situation, and solve the problems of managers and chefs in different ways.
We will first simulate the possible situation (high probability), and then it is easy to find measures.
If you tell the boss directly: the restaurant is in a mess, why the manager doesn't act, and why the chef is fooling around, then the boss will have several basic reactions.
First, the manager in front of me is an idiot. He has no control over the situation. This guy is really disappointing. Sooner or later, he will have to pack up and leave.
Second, a bad manager and a bad cook must not deteriorate overnight, but must be a gradual evolution process. The manager can neither stop such an important matter nor report it in time, which is really a straw bag.
Thirdly, I must bypass the manager and send someone down to investigate the actual situation and see what it is like and how this restaurant is managed and operated.
No matter which one is taken out, it is enough for the manager to drink a pot. Therefore, it is a low probability event to directly let the chef and manager be responsible for the current situation of the restaurant and want to pass the customs safely.
If we agree with the above analysis, then we will turn to the topic of how to reverse the status quo.
The first step is to break up the alliance between the manager and the chef (if they have already formed an alliance) with the help of various resources and forces.
The second step is to win over one party, temporarily ignore the responsibility of the party we want to win over, and use administrative powers to strike at the other party who does not work hard with appropriate strength.
The third step is to report the situation of the restaurant to the boss in an appropriate way on the premise that measures have been taken. The reason why we emphasize the premise that measures have been taken is because the store manager reports, and the boss usually comes to investigate or intervene, so we must take measures, and we are already taking action, not on paper.
The fourth step, after solving the problem of one party, we began to urge the party we recruited to act in accordance with the regulations and perform their duties.
I think this is the right way to deal with it. This question is very good, valuable and meaningful for discussion. Welcome to interactive discussion.