Conclusions based on the third study objective

The third objective that sought to analyse the current management practices and strategies that were currently in place was also attained. Based on the findings, the researcher posits that the study has managerial implications for the hospitality industry. The effects of human resource practices on food waste management practices in back-of-house procedures were significantly underestimated at the beginning of the study (Charlebois & Von Massow, 2015:286).

Through the interviews, it became clear that the emphasis was more on the guest experience, rather than on the preventing of food waste. The opinion concerned was projected onto the employees top-down by corporate governance. The guests accepted the hierarchy of values involved through their lack of concern regarding food waste. Concern for the source of their meals superseded the issue of food waste. The main areas of waste identified in the Delish restaurants could have easily been avoided through more careful planning and through potentially saying ‘no’ to a guest. As the guests did not pressure Delish to reduce their amount of waste, there was no incentive to do so. As a culture, having an enjoyable experience at a restaurant is held to be more important than the costs sacrificed in order to have such an experience. However, the amount of food being discarded was so high that the aspect should not be ignored. There was a consistent misalignment of goals between the staff and management that appeared to compound over time, resulting in more dissatisfied employees than there might otherwise have been. Social learning appears to influence what an employee perceives to be the consequence of wasteful actions. The non-wasteful employees tended to observe a lack of punishment of the other employees, some of whom were overly wasteful. As a by-product of the above, the non-wasteful employees saw no benefit from participating in the activities preventing waste, as they were neither recognised, nor celebrated. As noted by one employee,

the effect thereof compounded over time to create a widening gap between the management and staff.

These findings obtained merit further exploration than in the present thesis. Greater oversight by the managers, and accountability on behalf of wasteful employees might have slowed down, or stopped, the process from happening. The methods of communication utilised by the management team in relation to the rest of the staff were fragmentary. Individual conversations between staff and management were used for covering such sensitive issues as reprimands; however, the method employed was not always effective. As noted by one participant, multiple individual conversations about waste issues with employees did not serve to curb their wasteful habits. No other methods of communication, such as the written documentation of problems or suspension, were mentioned as more effectively communicating reprimands than the methods used at the present time. Further, group communication was rarely used.

Sections of the back of house experienced collective wasteful practices, such as the overcooking of steaks. Due to the nature of the shift work in the kitchens, it was not possible to communicate with all the employees of a certain section at any one time. To communicate a message to all the employees, the same message had to be repeated over several days, according to the employees’ individual work schedules. The strategies undertaken by management and the chefs were reactive as opposed to proactive, with the former strategies only being able to identify waste by means of inventory checks a week after it had occurred. From such a point, it might have been impossible to identify the cause of the waste, so as to prevent it from happening in the future. In addition, the blame involved might have been levied against the incorrect individual, which would have further exacerbated the social learning of the staff as a whole. The adoption of proactive strategies to be followed before waste occurred would have been more effective than the above. Such strategies would serve to groom a team to be more effective, which should be the goal of any chef. Proactive strategies could be included through more rigorous line checks, accountability for waste, and constant staff training. However, such strategies were unlikely to be implemented in the present environment, because they required continual support from management. As the management focus was clearly on the guests, the strategies concerned were unlikely to be upheld.

From a managerial perspective, the current study has merit. Arguably, the restaurant industry has a cumulative impact on the environment, the economy, and the society as a whole. As more consumers in the Western world come to tend to eat away from home, proper food management practices should become increasingly desirable. Currently, few governments regulate, or mandate, measures to monitor their restaurants’ sustainability claims and waste management

practices. As consumer expectations change, the onus falls on food operations to validate and inform patrons on practices followed behind the scenes. Culinary kitchens are often not visible or accessible for some customers, or they might even be obscure for others. With increased concerns related to kitchen and procurement practices, restaurants might, in future, be compelled to become more transparent about their back-of-house operations, which, for many, have been isolated from the dining areas in the past (Charlebois & Von Massow, 2015:286).