phobrla-FinalReport

Assessing Host Performance Improvement Needs at a
College-town Medium-scale Casual Fine Dining Restaurant
Phil Hobrla
University of Missouri - Columbia
School of Information Science & Learning Technologies
Learning Systems Design and Development M.Ed. Track
14 Dec 2015
Executive Summary
This report concerns a needs assessment performed at a chain restaurant in
a college town. The speciﬁc issue of focus is a discrepancy between expected
and actual host performance and the subsequent disagreement between the
hosts and management concerning the cause of this performance problem.
11 hosts work at this restaurant, which is one location of a very successful
seafood restaurant that itself has recently undergone changes in top-level
ownership. This mixed-gender group of overwhelmingly college-aged hosts
were surveyed with Qualtrics concerning their thoughts on the roots of this
performance problem; results were inconclusive. Extant data analysis of
Guest Satisfaction Survey (GSS) free-response comments revealed several
behavioral issues on the part of the hosts. Summarized forced-response data,
however, mitigated the severity of the hosts’ performance problem. However,
interviews with management revealed a desire to improve host performance
regardless of actual or perceived host competence. The author, analyzing
these data, found that the performance problem is mainly to do with one
technical issue (an out-of-date ﬂoor plan) and several other, low-tech issues
such as obstructed view of the lobby from the front and back rooms, poor
communication with servers being assigned out-of-section tables, a lack of
motivation (possibly best remedied by item promotion contests), and unclear
expectations for the hosts’ duties during Make Ready. Following the body
of the report are substantial appendices.
Produced for the Fall 2015 distance learning section of ISLT 9474

ASSESSING HOST PERFORMANCE NEEDS 2
Problem/Opportunity Statement
The issues found with hosts by management and the concerns those hosts have about
extant systems reveal both problems and opportunities. Managerial concerns are based
on guest experience metrics provided by quantitative averages (weekly and over time) and
discrete comments on the same. In short, management (perhaps rightfully so) focuses on
a problem: Guest Satisfaction Survey (GSS) results for the lobby (the hosts’ domain) lag
behind those of servers and the back of the house.
The hosts, to whom complaints about them are not fielded, are less aware of the
severity of guest issues, tend to focus instead on the ways in which their work is made
more inconvenient for both themselves, the servers, and the guests. A chief (anecdotal)
complaint discovered is the poor quality of the electronic guest management system, QSR
ConnectSmart Hostess. Hosts are concerned with making the details of their work easier
and streamlined so that they may have fuller interactions with guests.
Ultimately, gaps exist in the quality of the emotional labor exerted by the hosts,
seemingly on account of the simple-but-unreliable arrangements for selecting tables and
communicating with staff.
Organizational Description
Global
Red Lobster operates a chain of 678 corporate-owned, for-profit restaurants through-
out the United States and Canada. Red Lobster, essentially, sees its purpose (aside from
generating revenue and pleasing shareholders) as an accessible place at which to eat afford-
able seafood of premium quality.
Local
Columbia-located Red Lobster #250 is one of the original restaurants in the chain, and
it has been in the same location since 1975. Several back-of-house workers have spent their
careers working at this location. It has a staff of around 74, not including four managers.
Global Recent events of significance
Globally, the transfer of Red Lobster from the multi-asset Darden Restaurants to
the private equity firm Golden Gate Capital in July 2014 presented new challenges and
opportunities for the management and staff. [1], [2]. More than a year later, the process of
untying various ‘knots’ with Darden are still taking place, with a shift to a new scheduling
system and human resources platform. Red Lobster is now a privately listed company.
Local Recent events of significance
Locally, three substantial shifts have occurred since August 2015:
• Two new assistant managers have been hired since August 2015;
• core menus changes will take place mid-December 2015; and
• hosts desiring server training are now being trained as such.

Current financial situation
As aforementioned, Red Lobster is now a privately-owned company not listed in the
New York Stock Exchange. As such, certain information is not as readily available as it
once was. The issue that lead to the spinning off of Red Lobster from Darden—declining
sales from 2011 to 2014, has, per National Restaurant News, “apparently been recovering
for the past year” [4]. NRN ranked Red Lobster 28 out of 100 in their 2015 Top 100 Report
[5]. On 5 November 2015, Golden Gate Capital announced that they would buy back from
the firm VEREIT $204 million of the initial $1.2 billion the former sold the latter upon
acquiring Red Lobster [3].
Financial information for Red Lobster #250 is not available due constraints on the
sharing of store-level sales data with outside parties.
Audience Analysis
Scope
The audience is composed of hosts, some servers, Server Assistants (SAs), and man-
agers. However, the bulk of the performance problem lies with the hosts.
Size
As of 9 December 2015, there are twelve persons on the host schedule. However, only
four hosts (all men) work weekday morning shifts. Several hosts work less than 15 weekly
hours.
Ages
11 hosts are under the age of 23, while one host is in her mid-30s. However, this
middle-aged host has worked with Red Lobster for 15 years and is the host trainer. =
Education
One host is not pursuing postsecondary education, two are enrolled at the local com-
munity college, eight are enrolled in 4-year programs, and two have completed bachelor’s
degrees. Educational attainment plays no significant role in the interactions between hosts
themselves.
Working Relationships
All of the hosts are known to one another. Hosts, being human, have different per-
sonalities. While it is not so much the case that differing personalities and approaches cause
issues between co-hosts, differences in levels of emotional labor and
Primary and Secondary Data Sources
Needs were assessed via three techniques: interviews, extant data analysis, and sur-
veys. Interviews and the survey gathered primary data in the form of voiced opinions from
management and from forced-response work- and self-assessments on the part of the host

staff, respectively. The extant data analysis drew from guest comments and the calculated
mean of guest satisfaction for the lobby area.
The candidates for interviews and the survey were reached out to personally about
their hoped-for participation in said instruments.
Small sample sizes were an issue for all three techniques.
Data Gathering Techniques and Instruments
Extant Data
The instruments through which the extant data analysis were conducted were an
overview of relevant GSS comments, and interpretation of GSS quantitative data as given
to the author by the General Manager.
GSS Comments. Prior to mid-November, GSS guest comments were readily avail-
able to management and they were able to print several weeks of said responses. After doing
so, they’d display them in the FOH so that servers could see the comments about them.
The comments were were given, as is, from the general manager to the author. Each sheet
included at least ten comments, with columns for “Comment Date,” “Survey Item,” and
“Comment Text.”
GSS Data. The receipts of quantitative data were unexpected; the author had
mentioned the need for such data to the General Manager, but did not expect to receive it.
Towards the end of November, that GM handed the author a summary of guest satisfaction
with the lobby,
Survey
The process of completing the survey was straightforward and could be completed
on a desktop or mobile device. However, the author did worry that the mechanism of the
last question in the survey, which had a drag and drop function, would not be immediately
apparent to the respondents.
The technique by which the potential respondents were told about the survey was
informal. For the length of a week, the author gave out slips of paper with a link to the
survey to each host. The author also utilized the group chat used by the hosts to more
directly share a link to the survey.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with the general manager and the second-most-recently-
hired assistant general manager. The interviews were as confidential as an interview taking
place in a restaurant can be.
Data Gathering Process
Extant Data
GSS Comments. Upon request, the general manager gave, bi-weekly, printed GSS
comments from the second week of August 2015 to the second week of October 2015. Three-
fourths through that time period, the maximum time frame query for these comments was
reduced, which created gaps in the flow of received comment sheets.

In total, around 147 comments were counted. Only the ten comments that mentioned
hosts or the host stand were transcribed. Host-related comments represented less than 10%
of the total comments received. Hosts were never identified by name, and only the date
of the respondents’ visits were known, so the author’s efforts to tie complaints to specific
hosts were unsuccessful.
GSS Data. Only once was the GSS data given to the author. On 1 Nov 2015, the
general manager gave to the author a ‘Full Scale Report’ for the lobby. This report covered
GSS responses from 3 August 2015 to 1 November 2015, and covered four areas: “Wait
Time,” “Wait Time Accuracy,” “Lobby Welcome,” and “Prompt Server Greeting.”
Upon receipt, the report was scanned, but it was not analysed until December, when
compilation of this report began. Note that the time frame of this Full Scale Report cannot
be applied to GSS text comments.
Survey
Qualtrics automatically saved and stored each survey response.
Interviews
Data were collected using pre-designed interview protocols. Note that the same pro-
tocol was used for both interviews.
Data Analysis Process
Extant Data
GSS Comments. The author considered using NLTK for a quantitative analysis of
the host-related comments, but the sheer lack of data did not permit this. Instead, analysis
was conducted somewhat informally, with the author using his knowledge of rhetorical
analysis and the procedures associated with hosting to reconstruct the scenarios about
which the guests had commented. Ultimately, this analysis considered each guest comment
to be equally weighted and urgent. As such the learning objectives and recommendations
are primarily in response to these ten comments.
GSS Data. The GSS numerical data, which was received in a very condensed for-
mat, could not support any analysis beyond it surface. However, these data revealed that
there exists a gap in the host’s emotional labor that brings down the overall restaurant
rating (per the general manager).
Survey
Qualtrics, in its results section, did a basic level of analysis that worked quite well for
a survey with an incredibly small sample size. This was an informal survey with a very low
degree of rigor. Because the survey used only forced response answers, options for sentiment
analysis were not available.
The level of analysis that occurred was a summary or mean of the responses to each
question. There was no option for further or deeper analysis, due to the small sample size.
As aforementioned, five out of eight potential respondents submitted responses to the
survey.

Technique Instrument Source Summary
Extant Data Analysis GSS Comments Printouts Guests
Guests received poorer host
service on weekends.
Guests were not being prop-
erly asked about their seating
preferences
suggests that hosts may be
underquoting waits
suggests that closing host is
not being attentive enough to
host stand
Extant Data Analysis GSS Score Printout Guests
Data initial appears ex-
tremely positive
However, in actuality, lobby
(host) GSS scores fall below
those of the entire restaurant
and those of the servers
confirms that there is an issue
with hosts underquoting waits
Interview Manager Interview Protocol General Manager
General bias towards cor-
rective performance improve-
ment over any procedural
changes or new technology
Heavy emphasis on external
(GSS) ratings and reaching
towards them
thinking ‘globally’
Interview Manager Interview Protocol Assistant Manager
Revealed a potential bias on
his part for innovation, as op-
posed to performance and be-
havior improvement
Revealed a more permissive
managerial style that could
possibly diminish the efforts
of the general manager
insights about motivations of
hosts
Survey Qualtrics-based survey Hosts
Revealed that hosts each have
different priorities in terms of
the features they would like to
see in the GMS and their is-
sues with the same.
Revealed that hosts, for the
most part, have prior experi-
ence either with Red Lobster
or with another restaurant.
Not very robust data on ac-
count of the incredibly small
sample size.
Interview
The data sourced from the interview were treated as the guest comments were, al-
though the biases of each manager were readily discernible. These biases served to make
more realistic the scope and technical level of each recommendation.
Data Tables
General Data Summary and Interpretation
The corporate vision of Red Lobster diminishes when hosts aren’t focused on and
gracious with guests. Selected GSS comments, combined with a higher-than-wished-for

number of “Very Good” (as opposed to “Excellent”) guest ratings of the lobby welcome
suggest hosts are rushing guests and replacing cordiality with icy efficiency. Hosts must
see genial interactions with guests as more central to discrete and continuing significant
accomplishments than a rapid seating time or short wait.
The survey results reveal a lack of articulated motivation, values, and self-concept
by the hosts. Also, the disagreement about the specific issues with the guest management
system point to problems more related to behavioral performance than to technical com-
petency. The performance capability from expected emotional labor is disparate between
male and female hosts; observations revealed the former were less affable and warm with
guests.
Interviews with management reveal hosts are not integrated into the performance-
related feedback (auditing) and rewards (contests) set up for the wait staff. This is perhaps
on account of a ‘vicious cycle’ begun when management surmised hosts were unable to
effectively promote items, and so they were removed from real (as opposed to publicized)
participation in and ability to win prizes from contests.
Knowledge/Skill Needs
KSA #1
Issue Identified. Hosts are not genuinely communicating with guests beyond an
initial greeting.
Issue Analyzed. Hosts are pre-occupied with selecting tables in the GMS. Also,
there is a sense of urgency in seating tables that prevents the hosts from casually and calmly
seating and warming up guests. Hosts also appear to be skipping their required introductory
menu talk.
Learning Objective. Hosts will be able to transition from greeting guests to ini-
tiating genuine small talk, to continuing small talk while walking, to seating the party and
introducing the menu, in more than 50 and less than 100 seconds.
KSA #2
Issue Identified. Hosts are not ensuring that guests are sat in booths that are
appropriate both to the size of a party and of its members.
Issue Analyzed. Hosts are uncomfortable as being perceived as implying that
someone is fat by asking them if they desire a table. Instead of asking, hosts should (when
tables are physically available) work that information into a declarative statement that
frames the option as a convenience for the guest.
Learning Objective. Hosts will be able to
KSA #3
Issue Identified. Guests, especially those arriving close to end-of-day, are not im-
mediately greeted by a host.
Issue Analyzed. Hosts are aware that the front and back rooms each have vantage
points though which the front door may be seen, but they are not choosing to travel to
those points with regularity when they are performing closing duties in either room. Also,
the restrooms are surprisingly soundproof and

Learning Objective. Hosts will be able to watch for entering parties from any
place in the front of the house, excluding parts of the back room.
KSA #4
Issue Identified. Hosts are forgetting to inform servers of out-of-section seating or
‘flexing.’
Issue Analyzed. Servers do not spend their entire shifts in their sections. They
also spend significant amounts of their time in the kitchen, alley/line, and drink station and
bar area. Servers, of course, are to keep as constant an eye as possible on their sections.
However, if a party is sat in a closed section, or in an open section—but for a different
server—there is no way to ascertain either choice.
Learning Objective. Hosts will verbally confirm each out-of-section or flex seating
assignment with the relevant server, immediately informing a manager if any issues arise,
all while taking the drinks order for that table, if time permits.
KSA #5
Issue Identified. There are very few GSS comments to do with hosts.
Issue Analyzed. When hosts do not mention the GSS, the effective frequency of
the call to action to complete the GSS is lowered—even in the servers themselves mention
the GSS. Hosts come across as separate from or impartial to the servers, and so it is
important that they promote its completion. When the GSS is not completed following
a host’s call to do so, it’s very unlikely that the guests will feel compelled to discuss the
hosts’ performance—because they were never reminded that host performance, too, is up
for discussion.
Learning Objective. Hosts will be able to steer conversations with exiting guests
into a call to action to complete the GSS through the use of talking points.
Recommendations
Update Seating Plan
Highly prioritize the updating of the GMS-based seating plan to:
• Add the new booth/table (“ex-fish table”) in the front of the restaurant;
• Change the status of 8 from a table to a booth, and one for up to six persons;
• Increase the maximum capacity of tables 11 and 12 to four persons each; and
• Swap 106 with 108 and 204 with 206 (in terms of length and capacity).
Add Closing Servers into Communications Loop
Give each closing server a headset, so that they can be delegated messages from the
hosts to give to other servers. If an appropriately efficient communication protocol is set
up, it is possible that the duty of informing servers they’ve been sat out of section can be
delegated to the closing servers.

Move Obstacles to Host Awareness
Elevating the host stand computers by a half- or full-foot would increase host engage-
ment with guests. Hosts’ posture will straighten and their field of vision will focus on the
lobby—even when interacting with said computers—as opposed to the interior of the host
stand. Phone books are a low-cost means to this end.
Allow hosts to use door stops when they check the restrooms, so that they can hear
guests entering in the lobby.
Experiment with various arrangements of the flower boxes that rest on top of the
booth medians. This may increase the hosts’ line of sight from the front and back rooms.
Create Task List for Opening Duties
An opening task list should be written and should include tasks such as
• moving trash receptacles back into each restroom;
• moving back high chairs, boosters, and slings into their storage area;
• confirming servers who can take large parties or be ‘flexed;’
• restocking the bathroom supplies;
• distributing rolled silverware to the server stations;
• completing check-in slips and penciling in cut slips;
• adding servers to the GMS-based floor plan;
• inquiring about menu changes and items to be promoted
Include Hosts in Server Contests
Decide upon fair, measurable, and actionable metrics on which hosts can compete
with one another and potentially with servers. These metrics might include GSS rates,
orders from the fresh fish menu, or server-directed questions about a gift card promotion
mentioned by the host.

References
[1] Darden Restaurants. (2014, July 18). 2014 Annual Report. Retrieved December 7, 2015,
from http://www.corporatereport.com/darden/2014/ar/Darden_2014AR.pdf
[2] Darden Restaurants. (2015, July 24). 2015 Financial Review. Retrieved De-
cember 7, 2015, from http://www.corporatereport.com/darden/2015/ar/darden_
financials.pdf
[3] Maze, J. (2015, November 5). Red Lobster real estate changes hands
again. Retrieved December 11, 2015, from http://nrn.com/finance/
red-lobster-real-estate-changes-hands-again
[4] Maze, J. (2015, November 17). Casual dining continues to struggle. Retrieved December
13, 2015, from http://nrn.com/blog/casual-dining-continues-struggle
[5] Nation’s Restaurant News. (2015, June 19). 2015 Top 100: Restaurant
chain countdown. Retrieved December 6, 2015, from http://nrn.com/top-100/
2015-top-100-restaurant-chain-countdown#slide-73-field_images-136081
Glossary
ﬂex To assign a server a table outside of their section and beyond the. 9, 10
GMS Guest Management System. 10
GSS Guest Satisfaction Survey. 2, 4, 10
NLTK Natural Language Toolkit. 10
SA Server Assistant. 3, 10

Appendix A
Initial Needs Assessment Brainstorm
Overcoming Decreased Host Confidence in a Guest
Management System: a Needs Assessment Overview
Phil Hobrla
Abstract
The management of have expressed concern over the in-
creased training time needed by an incoming cohort of hosts. Hosts are
expressing, either verbally or through their actions, a decreased ability with
the guest management system (GMS) during peak times. This is especially
concerning as the weekday lunch shifts, to which a single host is assigned,
contain at least one peak time. Allison Rossett’s purpose-centered model of
actuals, optimals, feelings, causes, and solutions is used to outline a strategy
for collecting information on this issue.
Keywords: Guest Management System, Restaurant Host, Front of House,
Service Industry
Introduction
Within a restaurant, hosts often encounter different problems and overcome unique
barriers. Their position demands efficiency, deferential tone, and a quick-thinking mind
(and appropriately nimble fingers). When a host has difficulty using their primary tool,
the guest management system (GMS), the entire restaurant’s operations and profits are
threatened.
The restaurant uses QSR Automations’ ConnectSmart Hostess. Managers quickly
became aggravated when the most recent batch of host hires expressed lower confidence in
the GMS than appropriate. Although, when the restaurant is ‘dead,’ (i.e., empty) hosts are
prone to making errors and, more commonly, hesitating unnecessarily when seating when
the restaurant is at peak times, or when a ‘pop’ (rush of guests) occurs.
Phil Hobrla is a student in the Learning Systems Design and Development stream of the University of
Missouri’s Educational Technology M.Ed program. He may be reached at phil@hobrla.com or via LinkedIn

OVERCOMING DECREASED HOST CONFIDENCE IN GMS 2
Purposes
Optimals and Actuals Sought
For the purposes of this design document optimals and actuals are combined. In
the bulletin area where staff performance metrics are posted, actual data is annotated by
optimals, and also held in relation to performance a year prior. The optimals, specifically,
are very important to nail down in specific terms, as they will determine the scope, length,
and intensity of any training program or module that is created. It is also highly likely
that optimals will be discernible upon conservation with stakeholders, as they are easily
expressed and have less to do with optimizing host performance than with minimizing host
error.
General Manager (GM). The general manager is the fount of wisdom and this
and restaurant. The author has been asked to refer to the GM, for any
specific questions about optimals and the other four purposes. The GM has a concrete
vision for immediate and future operations and thus is an excellent source of optimals. He
will also be all too aware of performance issues as he is one to whom managers complain
when training lags. A specific optimal, in the GM’s view, is a seamless host operation
where, regardless of guest volume, guests are sat such that seating efficiency is maximized
and seating errors are minimized or eliminated. In terms of the actual situation with which
the GM and his assistant general managers (AGMs) have to deal with: each manager has,
at least once a week, dealt with a guest or server complaint about the lack of efficiency or
sense accompanying a seating decision.
Corporate. Conversations with corporate are unlikely to happen formally, but re-
viewing the quarterly and yearly reports on both overall performance and that of the specific
location will reveal trends and changes in host training time. It is not yet known if the au-
thor will have access to discrete reports or data. Likely he will have to make do with
summaries or estimations given by the GM. It is hard to know the specific actuals and
optimals of corporate in regards to hosts, as most optimals that are sent from corporate to
the restaurant concern servers and their rates of various errors.
Guest Satisfaction Survey (GSS). heavily prioritizes their Guest
Satisfaction Survey, and they require that servers meet a certain quota in a specified time
period. The GSS is, in terms of volume and detail, simply the most efficient means to
understand guest concerns about seating selection or seeing a host fumble with the GMS.
Selections from the free-response section of the GSS are printed and placed in a well-
trafficked area, so it stands out as perhaps the most easily accessible information available.
Disciplinary Files. Highly useful would be an anonymized summary, given orally
by the general manager, of the frequency and severity of host errors requiring documen-
tation. When held in context to the hosts’ employment length and the time of year, this
could give insight into what situations lead to exceptional errors in host service. Whether
a summary of disciplinary actions relating to hosts will be available is entirely dependent
on the whim of the general manager.
Feelings Sought
Seeking the feelings of stakeholders is deceptively simple; the restaurant has only 72
total employees and a maximum of 8 hosts and 4 host trainers (who themselves may no

longer work as hosts). The restaurant is located on I-70; as such, a significant portion of
the guests are travelers.
Hosts’ Feelings. In terms of the host population and sample size, they are one
and the same. This is problematic but not entirely damning. The hosts’ feelings must
be gathered in a way that is not intrusive, but that does not fail to directly address their
relationship with the GMS system. A solid-but-quick Qualtrics or Google Forms assessment,
perhaps coupled with a $5 Starbucks gift card for each of the six hosts, which would likely
significantly increase the likelihood of meaningful completion.
Guests’ Sentiments. Although the GSS is the main tool though which the feelings
and concerns of guests are monitored and analyzed, printing business cards with the Yelp
profile of the restaurant and an exhortation to voice their compliments and concerns honestly
would give management an opportunity to hear from especially vociferous guests. Well-
written Yelp reviews, though sometimes excoriating, contain a treasure trove of observations
and concerns. There are, as of printing, only 8 Yelp reviews for this location, so there is no
need to use scraping or sentiment software. That said, the Python-based Natural Language
Toolkit (NLTK) can be used to extract reoccurring phrases from the Yelp, Google, Facebook,
and Bing reviews, provided there are, say, more than 50 in all. The likelihood of extracting
useful information and sentiments from these reviews will increase with their volume—a
clear argument for this location actively soliciting honest reviews.
Causes Sought
Over-reliance on Formal Training . Management would chafe at the suggestion
that the current length of training is too short. It is not the length of formal training, but
the potential over-dependence on the same that may be an issue. Understanding the current
ratio of formal training to informal shadowing will shine a light on the value of each. An
understanding can be established by asking each new host how often, after the completion
of their formal training, they have asked detailed questions of their co-hosts or requested
to stand back and watch as said hosts demonstrated correct methods or keystrokes.
Host Apathy. Hosts simply may not wish to perform their duties to the degree
asked for by the GM or corporate. To wit: hosts, like many workers, will ‘slack off’ on days
and intervals when the general manager (or any manager) is not present. It would be useful
to determine if a correlation between the specific FOH manager on duty and rates of host
errors or hesitation with the GMS.
Solutions Sought
Convenient Training. Training, whether produced by corporate or in house, is a
likely solution to this issue (at least to some degree). Gathering information about training
(and even producing some types of the same) can involve the specific location and its staff to
varying degrees. Simple just-in-time (JIT) training, specifically, may very well be the most
realistic solution, on account of its low potential for disruption and its ‘reusable’ format.
GMS Upgrade. It is rumored that will be switching to a new GMS by
2016. This is unsubstantiated and it is unclear whether such a change, which would likely
echo switch to iPad-based GMS systems, would smooth or complicate
host interactions. The possibility of such an upgrade increases the attractiveness of training

not tied to one particular device or software. It is important to clarify these rumors with
the GM, who will then express his opinion on whether he would like the training to be
software-agnostic, and thus more soft skills-based.
Staﬃng Changes. The food and beverage industry has a comparatively high
turnover rate. That said, this particular location seems to have higher-than-
average retention. This exact rate can be requested from the GM without much fuss, and
has high value in that it will inform the instructional depth of the training and rationalize
the potential allocation of funds for training, or the refusal thereof. This rate can also be
used to determine whether it is better to invest in new performance improvement, or to
terminate the employment of consistently under-performing hosts.

Appendix B
Performance Analysis
ISLT 9474: Performance Analysis Worksheet
Phil Hobrla
12 Sept 2015
Has a performance problem been identified?
Yes. Despite increased training time, hosts at struggle with using
the guest management system (GMS) in an efficient and unobtrusive manner. This is a
problem that concerns not only the software itself, but also the hosts’ over-reliance on the
same.
places a high value on host friendliness and speed. But at this particular
location it seems that geniality and speed are mutually exclusive. The guest management
system is a stumbling block for the hosts, and their inability to use it while looking at and
conversing with guests detracts from the guest experience.
Identify Problem Sources
How do you know a problem exists? What evidence or symptoms indicate that
there is a problem?
• Complaints by guests as expressed in-store and via the Guest Satisfaction Survey; and
• Concern from managers that training for some hosts has taken over 3 weeks.
Identify Problem Performance
What are the performers unable to do that they should?
There are many small competencies required of hosts at and other similar
restaurants. Specifically, management has pointed out hosts’ inability to deal with multiple
parties having multiple needs during the lunch shift.
• select a table in less than 30 seconds, when not on a wait, without fail;
• maintain eye contact and conversation with guests during seat selection and waitlist-
ing; and
• collect information from and keep updated multiple demanding or large (6+ person)
parties without becoming flustered.

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 2
Identify Performer
Who produces or has the performance problem?
The performance problem is mainly limited to hosts but issues have been observed
with managers and server assistants who occasionally use the GMS.
Problem Producer. The problems occur most often with inexperienced hosts who
are unable to ‘juggle’ the use of the GMS with proper guest etiquette and host-server
communication.
Experience, age, and ability level of problem producer. As aforementioned,
most of these problem producers are inexperienced hosts. The age range is 17 to 22 years
(5 years). These hosts, some of whom are still training, have not worked in environments
where they must constantly balance technology use with emotional labor.
In which situations do problems occur?
These problems tend to occur most often during lunch shifts (11 AM to 3 PM)
when there is only one host on duty. The promotion has increased both
the number of guests visiting during peak hours on weekdays and the duration of their
stays. As such, hosts have to make decisions about seating servers out of section, while
communicating with new parties and updating the guest management system.
Describe Ideal Performance
Scenario
It is 12:08 PM. Not many guests have entered the restaurant but the host can see
three different parties arriving. He moves to the interior doors and holds them open; as he
does this he confirms the size of each party. Continuing to talk with the most vocal party,
he moves back to the host stand and gets names for all three groups. He seats the first two
parties, quickly—but without diverging from his expected ‘talk.’
He does not return to the host stand but instead uses a cocktail tray to take six plate
setups to the table for the larger group (six guests). He then takes a corresponding number
of menus from the server station, stages them, and quickly heads back to the host station.
While doing this his eye has been on the host stand and—more specifically, on the guests.
When he moves around the restaurant, he does it in an intentional manner that makes it
clear to the guests that their table is being prepared.
He returns to the host stand with a smile on his face. Using the party’s name, he
calls for them and initiates a conversation with the person closest to him. He then does his
‘talk with the table.’
How long does this take? Five minutes.
Table
Please see Table 1 for a tabular representation of ideal performance.

Task being Performed Resulting Output Standard (How Well)
Select guest seats while con-
versing & making eye contact
Genuine connection with
party is made and seating
information is gained in a
manner that does not come
across as overly cold or
brusque.
Every party is greeted cor-
dially (beyond "Hello, how are
you today") at the same time
their table is selected. Con-
versation continues as guests
are taken to table.
Promptly communicate out-
of-section seatings to servers
AFTER table has been
seated.
Servers are aware that they
have a table to greet, and
guests receive both the appro-
priate host and server greet-
ings.
Never abandon guests while
looking for a server to take a
table. If necessary, have an-
other server greet the table
while a ‘permanent’ server is
found.
Quickly and efficiently handle
varying seating needs of mul-
tiple tables.
Multiple guest parties feel
their needs are being quickly
and graciously met.
Parties are correctly pri-
oritized and large tables
are pre-staged in a clean
and aesthetically-pleasing
manner.
Party names are remembered
such that their needs may be
addressed personally.
Parties are never confused by
host actions.
Recognizes when it’s appro-
priate to go on a wait and
can rationalize this without
becoming flustered.
Guests see a wait as being
in their best interest—as op-
posed to seeing its imposi-
tion as a flimsy excuse for un-
derperforming staff or under-
staffing.
Hosts, anticipating a wait, al-
ways explain its imposition
in terms of guest satisfaction,
couching it as essential for en-
suring an enjoyable meal.
Table 1
Four main competencies identified and benchmarked

Describe Deficient Performance
Impersonally Seating Guests. Guests are often seated using canned phrases;
conversation does not last long and are often too focused on the menu items or promotions.
Eye contact is not maintained when the host is using the GMS.
Not- or misinforming servers about out-of-section tables. Hosts regularly
forget to inform servers of their being sat out of section. They also forget that they are to
seat a table, and then find a server; as such, they sometimes tell parties that “they need to
find a server.”
Becoming flustered with large/complex parties. When large parties arrive, it
can take the attending host a number of minutes to
Mis-utilizing waits. During the lunch shift, the attending host is often hesitant
to go on a wait. At times, guests are critical of the discrepancy between the seemingly
availability of tables and the lack of current seating options. Hosts are sometimes unable
or unwilling to properly explain the wait in terms of guest satisfaction.

Check Performance Components to Determine Performance Discrepancy
Standard (Optimal) Actual Output Deficiency
Select guest seats while con-
versing & making eye contact
Uses canned phrases; conver-
sation and seat selection are
mutually exclusive and con-
versation does not continue as
guests are walked to table
Host should have an idea of
what they will do with the
GMS before they touch their
finger to it.
Host is unaware of appropri-
ate/pleasant/relevant small
talk topics.
Promptly communicate out-
of-section seatings to servers
AFTER table has been
seated.
Host tells guest that the for-
mer needs to find a server for
the latter before the latter can
be sat.
Forgets to inform server of
out-of-section seating.
Fails to ensure table is picked
up.
Host mismatches priorities.
Host has unclear mental map
of the actual locations of
servers.
Host does not know how or
want to delegate table pick-up
to a manager or server assis-
tant.
Quickly and efficiently handle
varying seating needs of mul-
tiple tables.
Is slow in greeting and dealing
with multiple parties.
Seats parties in wrong or-
der/priority.
Forgets to pre-stage tables for
5+ tops
Host does not know how to
talk to large groups.
Host does not use ’First In,
First Seated’ rule
Host unwilling/afraid to dele-
gate pre-staging to server as-
sistant.
Recognizes when it’s appro-
priate to go on a wait and
can rationalize this without
becoming flustered.
Mentions that a wait is occur-
ring because there are too few
servers, because ’we didn’t ex-
pect it would be this busy,’
or on account of a server
transtion
Host not framing wait in
terms of guest experience.
Host not properly handling
server transition.
Table 2
My caption

Identify Probable Causes of Performance Deficiency
Job Performer Deficiency Problems
Job Performers’ Lack of... ...contributes % of overall problem Suggested Data Gathering Technique
Information 35 Manager Interview
Lack of of KSAs 15 Employee survey
Lack of audits 50 Test Performance (i.e., do audits)
Total % of all problems caused by lack of motivation: 20%
Table 3
My caption
Motivational Causes of Performance Deficiency
No tip share. When was spun off from , the (rel-
atively new) tip-share policy was scrapped; hosts make around $8.50-$9 an hour. Because
there is no tip-share system in place, it can be difficult to easily incentivize host performance.
Hosts not part of server contests. When upselling and promotion contests are
held, hosts are not accounted for on tick sheets. Also, because specials do not rotate
and promotions can last for months, incentives can quickly stagnate, meaning that server
contests occur over a longer period of time, with fewer payouts and thus fewer winners. And,
although servers are required to meet a certain quota of promotional sales, hosts, whose
seating procedures don’t reference specific dishes or prices, seem ill-suited for a quota.
Few host audits. Negative incentives, aside from the reality of firing if a partic-
ularly egregious error occurs, are not present and the current store atmosphere, which is
very laid-back, would not jive with negative incentives. Write-ups occur infrequently. At
this particular , host performance is not regularly audited and performance
evaluations are more informal than those done for servers.
Motivational Problem % contributed Suggested Data Gathering Technique
Lack of tip share 35 Manager Interview
Not connected to server contests 15 Employee survey
Lack of audits 50 Test Performance (i.e., do audits)
Total % of all problems caused by lack of motivation: 20%
Table 4
My caption
Identify Environmental Causes of Performance Deficiencies
Host stand design. The host stand is designed such that the seating host has to
pass through the waiting guests when taking a party to the bar area. This, nine times out
of ten, proves awkward. The hosts have not decided on or been instructed on language to
use when performing this ‘maneuver.’

There is no wall behind the host stand, it is connected on only one side. Hosts
sometimes bump into exiting guests, and the ‘blind spot’ of the host stand, where hosts
store their drinks, forces them into a non-optimal position.
Out-of-date training materials. The training materials used for the the host
duties are about two years out of date, and do not account for changes in procedure and
policy. The training workbook relies heavily on cloze exercises, some of which are not even
correct. This dichotomy between the training materials and the actual knowledge needed
to work as a host confuses trainees and makes them somewhat leery of any ‘oﬃcial’ ways
of hosting. They are also the only source of information about the QSR ConnectSmart
Hostess
Deprecated GMS software. QSR no longer actively supports their ConnectSmart
Hostess software; they have, instead, shifted their focus to an iPad-based system. QSR does
not appear to produce paper or PDF documentation for ConnectSmart Hostess, and the
help button embedded in the software is less a guide than a key of the various symbols used.
Hosts desiring to do just-in-time training with the software are unable to do so because there
is no embedded help documentation. The ConnectSmart Hostess system has a wide swath
of annoying features (or, more commonly, the lack thereof), and sometimes crashes.

Appendix C
Tools Justification
ISLT 9474: Tool Selection Justification
Phil Hobrla
20 Sept 2015
Tool Selection 1: Feelings
The most appropriate technique for assessing feelings is the dissemination and analysis
of a survey, hosted with Qualtrics. A survey was chosen due to the highly extensible nature
of the tool and the availability of the Qualtrics platform, which is itself highly versatile.
Qualtrics is a highly-lauded platform that many top universities employ, likely so as to
provide some semblance of consistency when surveys are reviewed by IRB boards. And while
this survey, even though conducted by a University of Missouri student, will not undergo
institutional review, the choice of this specific survey platform bodes well for those expecting
robust and error-free data sets. In all, there is really no other appropriate technique aside
from a survey; and, within that, no better tool than Qualtrics.
The hosts at have been chosen as the group that can best con-
tribute information on the issues (which makes sense, as the issue is specific to them).
There are approximately 6 hosts, which will complicate, but not condemn, the use of a
survey. These hosts are all aged between 17 and 22 years, so there should be no issues with
the actual navigation of the survey by these users. Because of the small population of hosts,
it will be equaled by the sample size. As such, it will be very important that each host
completes the survey in a thorough and timely manner. Giving each host a $5 Starbucks
gift card may nudge them in the direction of completion.
A Qualtrics-based survey will provide the best information possible due to the pri-
vacy/anonymity given to the respondents and the availability of a variety of high-tech survey
items and the allowance for response validation. Also, a Qualtrics-based survey has a variety
of analytic tools embedded within it.
As aforementioned, anonymity is necessary as there are only six or seven hosts work-
ing at . The promise of anonymity frees the respondents from the worry
of retaliation or passive aggression on account of their responses. That said, this survey
is not sponsored by the management of , so there is not really a reason
for the hosts to fear any sort of reprisal, or even any sort of snubbing or passive aggres-
sion. Anonymity then, perhaps serves best when free response answers are minimized such
that individual respondents cannot be smoked out based on their use of language in those
responses.
It is presumed that the time for the development of this survey is available, as the
developer has plenty (20+ hours) of available time in which to develop the survey. The
resources for the hosting and development are limited, as there will be no funding received

TOOL SELECTION JUSTIFICATION 2
from for the development of the survey. However, those doing the needs as-
sessment and developing the survey do indeed have the requisite skills needs for the survey
to be effective.
Because the survey is administered online, it does not take time away from any of the
functions (essential or not) required of the hosts during the work day. Because Qualtrics
has been chosen as the development environment and hosting space for the survey, there is
no concern about the cost of administering, scoring, and analyzing the initial results. That
said, the survey’s results will likely lead into one-on-one interviews with hosts, which will
have a time-cost.
Possible risks of using a Qualtrics-based survey are limited. It is possible that the
survey will not accurately capture the sentiments of the hosts. Remembering that this
survey will function to seek out the feelings of the hosts on extant, already-identified issues,
it is imperative that the survey be constructed in a manner that will make the hosts want
to answer it, and answer it carefully. There are no financial risks associated with this
technique.
Host buy-in is essential. It may be necessary, as aforementioned, to pay them in kind
for their participation. Without host participation in this survey, there is no data and no
springboard for later needs assessment techniques which base themselves on the survey’s
findings.
At the stage wherein hosts’ feelings are understood, a survey stands over a series of
interview as it does not waste hosts’ time by delving into concerns that may be irrelevant
or overblown.
Tool Selection 2: Actuals
Extant data analysis is the most relevant technique available for understanding ‘ac-
tuals.’ Every week, printouts of complaints and compliments submitted in the free response
section of nationwide Guest Satisfaction Survey are acted on by management
and centrally displayed in a high-traffic back-of-house area.
Although most GSS responses concern the servers, some mention the hosts (rarely
by name) within reviews for servers. Fewer still concern themselves wholly with the hosts’
conduct or seating choice. As only one host works during the lunch shift, we may, going by
the guest-provided exit time, easily discover the host of whom the guest is writing. That
said, some guests do refer to the servers as ‘hosts,’ and the prevalence of servers seating their
own tables can throw off the utility of the GSS for pinpointing host failures and successes.
Anonymity is built into the GSS; guest names are not part of the data available to
those viewing the printouts as they pass by. Because of the low amount of repeat customers
(this is located off an interstate), it is not likely that patterns will be discernible
from the GSS—especially when the low response rates (in part due to location)
Server and host names, however, are not anonymized and in fact are highlighted—
generally, however, only when the staff member is being complimented. Managers will
annotate these callouts, as well. So it would be necessary for the names to be replaced with
unique identifiers. Under no circumstances should the names or identifying information of
staff members be published in any data sets or reports, even those produced for the store.
The time, resources, funding, and skills necessary for the development of this extant
data analysis are largely dependent on the overall GSS strategy and methodology used by

TOOL SELECTION JUSTIFICATION 3
’s corporate office. That said, these GSS printouts may be further configurable
by the management of , and so access to a more detailed set extant data
with which to work may depend on the comfort level of the store management. Skill-wise,
there is a chance that the assistant managers will not have the same command of the GSS
interface as does the GM, which could make irregular the types and depth of data available.
The time and resources for the capture and analysis of this extant data analysis are
readily available. There is no funding for this undertaking, as it is not sponsored by either
or the University of Missouri. Time-wise, the photographing or scanning of
the weekly GSS printouts takes less than five minutes a week. NLTK-based textual and
sentiment analysis, provided the data is properly re-structured and tokenized, takes seconds,
as well. The majority of the time burden will derive from the manual interpretation of the
original and analyzed data. Resources beyond a Python-having PC and a camera-having
device are not necessary. Skill-wise, the sensibility and usefulness of the NLTK-derived
data is dependent on the author’s abilities with that toolkit. The author owns a copy of
Python 3 Text Processing with NLTK 3 Cookbook and also has extant template scripts for
bigram and trigram frequency analysis. He also has access to several hosted tools, part of
the “Python NLTK Demos for Natural Language Text Processing” website.
Possible risks of using extant data analysis include human error (which is entirely
possible), improper use of NLTK resulting in faulty sentiment analysis, and/or creating
a privacy breach of information related to staff member performance or restaurant issues.
Additionally, it is possible that the extant data analysis will have to rely more on a human
reading the GSS comments than a software deriving sentiment and themes from the same—if
there is too little data, than a computational analysis would present a poor option.
Conversely, an advantage of using extant data analysis is the non-disruptive nature
of the technique. Moreover, EDA is the technique that most reflects a culture of service, as
it focuses almost entirely on the input of guests!
Buy-in is important but has already occurred. The EDA can only be sustainable if
servers and hosts are actively reminding guests to voice their compliments and complaints
via the GSS. Thankfully, servers appear to be consistent in their recommending of the GSS.
Host buy-in, however, needs increasing.
Interviews were not used as it is entirely impractical to interview guests.
Surveys were not used as the GSS itself is a survey that has been expertly fashioned
and developed by . As with interviews, there is no appropriate way to recom-
mend an independent means of guest satisfaction assessment without interrupting the GSS,
which is a core component of the marketing and quality control plan.

Appendix D
Survey
ISLT 9474: Needs Assessment Survey
Phil Hobrla
4 Oct 2015
Survey
Figure 1. Introduction
A live preview of the survey may be viewed at https://missouri.qualtrics.com/jfe1/preview/SV
_bvnyMwNkQc2BTkF

NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY 2
Figure 2. Q1: Host Length at Restaurant Unit [causes/demographics]
Figure 3. Q2: Host Length at The Company [causes/demographics]
Figure 4. Q3: Prior Relevant Employment of Host [causes/demographics]
Figure 5. Q4: Length of First-Hire Training [causes/attitudes]

Figure 6. Q5: Host Feelings on Initial Training Content [causes/attitudes]
Figure 7. Q6: Host Feelings on Performance Auditing [feelings/attitudes]
Figure 8. Q7: Host Feelings on Technical Competence [feelings/attitudes]
Figure 9. Q8: Host Knowledge of Optimal Seating Time [actuals/knowledge]

Figure 10. Q9: Host Knowledge of Actual Seating Time [actuals/behavior]
Figure 11. Q10: Host Ranking of GSS Issues [causes/skills]

Appendix E
Interview Report
ISLT 9474: Interview Report
Phil Hobrla
University of Missouri–Columbia
Work Place Description
is one of the original
locations, and has a mixed turnover
rate (low in the kitchen—where some staff have
been for 30+ years—and higher in the front of
house). In total, ∼70 people work for this location,
including four managers. There are four staff who
only work as hosts, while five other staff are able
to clock in as hosts.
Performance Problem Description
In the past 60 days, results from the Guest Satis-
faction Survey have indicated that, while the over-
all satisfaction with this unit hovers at around 72%,
satisfaction with host performance has decreased
by 10%. Additionally, servers have begun to com-
plain that they are regularly being skipped in rota-
tion and not being informed when they are ‘flexed’
(i.e., sat outside of their section).
Managers envision an optimal performance sit-
uation where there is parity between the restau-
rant’s overall satisfaction level and that attached to
the host performance. Increases in host attentive-
ness, per management, are linked to the bridging of
this actual/optimal gap. (Interestingly, server ac-
tual/optimal pairs for comps, voids, and discounts.
Data Collection Procedure
The General Manager was initially not warm to
the idea of any manager aside from him being in-
terviewed in a formal or informal context. Indeed,
he was not very keen on being interviewed, ei-
ther. By explaining the important role of the inter-
view in needs analysis—a critical means to under-
stand the hidden priorities we could not otherwise
attach to aspects of the performance problem—
agreed and scheduled two separate inter-
views for what he understood to be the two lowest-
volume periods of the week. volunteered the
newest manager, ‘A.’ to be the second interviewee.
When I have interviewed others in the past, my
use of a computer hindered me. I decided to avoid
typing and instead took paper notes. Each inter-
view lasted around 20 minutes, and so I had to be
quite concise and so my procedure played out as
follows:
1. Preparation: print interview protocol, find
quiet area of restaurant,
2. Statement of Meeting’s Purpose (30 seconds)
3. Re-introduction of self (30 seconds)
4. Questions (18 minutes)
5. Summary of Interview contents (1 minute)
6. Check-out (30 seconds)
7. Typing written notes (15 minutes)
8. Preparing report (1.5 hours)
Data Summary
GM
, naturally personable, interviewed well.
When I stated the purpose of the meeting ‘to get
a better sense of the core of this issues and your
thoughts on it,’ he said he looked forward to help-
ing. However, for the most part, ’s answers
suggested that he viewed the performance problem
as just that, a problem arising from a lack of full
effort on the part of the hosts. ’s unique an-
swers are as follows:
Vision. Focus on host responsiveness and
‘repping’ of GSS.

2 PHIL HOBRLA
Expectations. Professional conduct in front of
guests, aware of the seated/meal stage/dirty status
of all tables within eyesight.
Feedback. Hosts will get better feedback if
they don’t have to actively look for a table, but in-
stead are aware of the next two tables/booths avail-
able (so that guests can be taken directly to a table).
Tools. Yes, guest management system soft-
ware has issues, but hosts need to be consistent
with their workarounds and also lean less on the
software.
Environment. The issue with the host stand’s
design does not exist if the correct seating proce-
dures (when two hosts are present) are followed.
Processes. Hosts should be listening for the
sounds associated with guest entry, and react to
them immediately.
Rewards. The reward for increased host per-
formance is an increase in ’s
rankings amongst the locations in
Missouri.
Recognition. This problem is recognized by
regional and national corporate entities, but re-
sources have not been allocated for it at the na-
tional level. At the regional level, the general man-
agers are discussing the issue, but it is not a top
priority.
Incentives. Half-jokingly, he suggested the
best positive incentive is not being fired. He said
floor managers should be more quick to give hosts
praise for excellent guest service.
Motivation. An external motivation is a host-
to-server promotion.
Self-concept. As a GM, job security is tied to
the performance of all staff members, including
hosts.
Capacity. Outdated training materials and an
incorrect table map are issues that effect our ca-
pacity to deal with this issue.
Organizational Culture.
is actually one of the top locations in
Missouri, excluding St. Louis.
New Assistant Manager
’s comments were comprehensive enough
that the new manager’s information was redundant
at points. I also think he may have been influenced
by the General Manager. However, he definitely
placed more blame on the technology and training,
and less on the abilities of the hosts.
Tools. Current system is holdover from old
chain owner; ironically, those restaurants no longer
use the system.
Environment. Hosts need to be proactive in
maintaining the cleanliness and contents of the
host stand.
Rewards. Guests who feel welcomed can be-
come return visitors.
Incentives. If the GSS is consistently men-
tioned to exiting guests, hosts should expect to find
their names (in a positive light) in the results.
Motivation. Internal motivation: all sorts of
people come to , they all deserve great
experience so as to have a respite from their issues,
if but for 30-50 minutes.
Self-concept. He is the manager directly re-
sponsible for the hosts and can be fired if host per-
formance falls below a certain level.
Capacity. “Some hosts aren’t open to taking
suggestions.’
Organizational Culture. Thinks the tri-
college environment of Columbia may have some-
thing to do with the overall success of the store.
However, the younger hosts may be somewhat less
experienced (sheltered?).
Overall
Without these interviews, I would not have
known that the managers differed in their attitude
concerning the cause and solution of the perfor-
mance problem. To wit: ’s comments vs.
those of the new manager reflect two sides of a
continuum from high empathy/low correction to
lower empathy/constant constructive correction.

############ Managers Interview
Date:
Interviewees:
Group: ######### Managers
Interviewer: Phil Hobrla
Time Begun:
Time Concluded:
Goal of the Meeting:
The goal of this meeting is to discern your thoughts on the current issue with host performance. As you're
aware, the GSS has indicated a slip in guest perception of host performance.
About Me:
In addition to being an employee at this ######### location, I'm also a graduate student in instructional
design at Mizzou.
About this Project:
As you know, I've been collecting data and opinions over the past 6-or-so weeks for a continuing project for
one of my classes. This interview is part of that.
Vision What do you see as the optimal scenario for host
performance?
Expectations What are your expectations for hosts?
Have those expectations been met?
Feedback GSS responses mention hosts, but rarely in a
positive light. What can hosts be doing such that
GSS responses hold them in a more positive light?
Tools What are your thoughts on the age and utility of
QSR ConnectSmart Hostess?
Environment The host stand has some 'quirks.' Do you think the
design of the host stand effects performance?
Processes How can hosts optimize their greeting and seating
procedures?
Rewards How will increased host performance benefit
#########?
Recognition Does ########## regional and corporate
management recognize the host-related performance
problem?
Incentives It seems there are only negative incentives for hosts
to perform well. What would a positive incentive
look like?
Motivation Are there any internal motivations you'd like to see
hosts develop in themselves? What about external
motivations?
Self-Concept How do you see yourself in relation to the hosts and
their performance?
Capacity Has anything gotten in the way of improving host
performance?
Organizational Culture Is the culture at ########### similar to that at
other restaurants?
Conclusion:
• In a nutshell, you've said...
• Would you like to add anything, and are there any questions I should ask?
• Would you be OK with me contact you for further clarification or details? Your responses will, of
course, be confidential.

Appendix F
Observation Report
ISLT 9474: Observation Report
Phil Hobrla
University of Missouri–Columbia
Workplace Description
A workplace description was provided in the aforewritten
interview report. At , where there is a total
staff of 70, nine employees are trained as hosts, but only four
or five actually work as such.
The host stand itself is neither cramped not overly large.
It two recessed touchscreen PCs that run (and only run) the
guest management system, QSR ConnectSmart Hostess. In-
use menus are stacked on the top-right hand side of the stand,
while extra menus are stacked in a bottom-middle crevice.
The host stand has a small drawer to the immediate right of
the middle, and this is used to store writing utensils and scis-
sors.
The host stand is located near to the entryway, fish tank,
bathrooms, and cash stand.
Performance Problem Description
Guest Satisfaction Survey (GSS) ratings for host perfor-
mance have fallen in relation to the overall restaurant rating,
which has risen slightly. There is a gap between the expected
performance of hosts, whether they’re working solo or in a
team.
Optimal Scenario
Proactive and constantly rotation-aware solo hosts pro-
vide an equally satisfying guest experience (as understood
via GSS comments and ratings) as when several hosts are on
duty; when multiple hosts are working, functions are clearly
delineated and communication is constant.
Actual Scenario
Solo hosts, for lack of proactivity and offline seating ro-
tation knowledge, provide an less satisfying guest experi-
ence (as understood via GSS comments and ratings) as when
several hosts are on duty; when multiple hosts are working,
functions are duplicated and forgotten while communication
is out-of-sync and often inaccurate.
Data Collection Procedure
1. Designed observation guide
2. Gained permission from General Manager to conduct
two observations
3. confirmed observation dates and times (one Tuesday
and one Friday) so that I could observe a single host on low-
and high-volume days, respectively.
4. Checked weekly schedule and gained permission from
relevant hosts to perform an unobtrusive observation.
5. Printed observation sheet and gathered together writing
utensils and a clipboard
6. Arrived at location early so as to take notes on the work
environment
7. situated myself in a corner and began my observation
Data Summary
Are the hosts aware of any modifications to or issues with
the seating plan?
Not always. One some occasions the opening manager,
who doesn’t ‘mic up’ until after 11 AM (30+ minutes after
the opening host begins their work), is overcome with their
administrative duties and the host don’t receive any form of
the rotation sheet until just before or after the store is open to
guests.
Also, there is an issue where servers will try to switch
in or out times with one another, without confirming with a
manager. A host cannot reflect changes in the rotation sheet
or ‘cut slips’ without confirmation from a manager—so this
has become an annoyance, at times.
By what process do hosts seat large parties of uncertain
size?
Hosts seem to use the largest number they hear, which
doesn’t cause issues unless a party is over 15 people in size.
However, when a part is unsure whether it’s 7 or 8 people,
there can be an issue as the breakpoint for a table one server
can take is 8 guests. Hosts communicate with managers and
then confirm with servers.
How much time do hosts allocate to GMS data entry ver-
sus guest conversation?
There is an emphasis on quick seating, so conversations
don’t often last long—especially given that hosts don’t al-
ways attempt conversation as they escort guests.
How are hosts performing bathroom checks?
Bathroom checks are performed about every 90 minutes
during non-peak hours and every 45 minutes during peak.

2 PHIL HOBRLA
Hosts have forgotten to stock the restroom items stored in
the cash stand, causing issues when the bathrooms need to
be resupplied in a hurry.
How do hosts react to correction/criticism?
Criticism by managers results in the host immediately
changing their criticized action—at least for the duration of
the shift. The hosts occasionally exchange constructive crit-
icism; some follow through while others merely humor their
coworkers. That said, some of the ideas held by hosts are
not realistic, such as taking out the bathroom trash with each
bathroom check or greeting guests in a more vibrant tone.
Managers often admonish hosts to use the 2-4-2 method
(standing two feet from the door with four menus in hand
while knowing the next two tables in rotation) but never se-
riously implemented.
Are hosts promoting the Guest Satisfaction Survey?
Yes—generally only if a guest comes up and mentions a
server by name. Complaints are generally not rendered at the
end of the meal; compliments, though, often involve having
a manager come to the host stand to speak with the guest, at
which point the former mentions the GSS to the latter.
What language are they using to do so?. The phrasing,
generally-speaking, is “Just so you know, we have a Guest
Satisfaction Survey where you can make sure [server name]
gets recognized. There’s a link on your receipt.”
How do hosts handle in-house guest complaints?
Hosts know well not to mitigate complaints (even those
about them). A manager is paged to the host stand, at which
point the host role in the complaint process is generally
ended.
Complaints about wait times elicit reassurances that the
party will be sat as soon as possible. When walk-aways oc-
cur, they are recorded, in the “Reason for Walk-away,” as
‘went to bar,’ and not the (correct) ‘wait time too long.’
Are hosts able to ‘multitask’?
Yes, hosts are able to multitask and generally do so at the
beginning, middle, and end of day. Hosts cannot physically
be present in multiple areas of the restaurant, so there is a
limit to the degree multitasking can help a host.
If needed, a server or manager can escort a party to their
table. Generally this is not something requested by a host—
the server/manager will walk up, ask for the table number,
and escort the party.
How are hosts handling server transitions?
Server transitions are rough. Phrases along the lines of
‘If you could bear with me, there’s a server transition and
there’ll be a short wait’ were not infrequently heard from
2:50-3:15 in the afternoon.
Paperwork. Some hosts pre-fill the various paperwork
needed for the afternoon shift in the morning, as they do their
opening work.
Late/no show servers. AWOL servers are a major issue
for the hosts. These servers will call the restaurant—often
several times—to speak with a manager, but the host is not
kept ‘in the loop’ as these decisions are made. When these
servers arrive, hosts don’t always confirm their on-duty sta-
tus, which can result in guests being sat in unstaged or still-
closed sections.
Are hosts ever expressing doubt in their skills and knowl-
edge?
Generally not doubt in their abilities, per se. Rather, some
hosts are unsure of their seating decisions, especially in terms
of seating new/transfer servers, seating servers out of their
sections, and seating large parties (particularly in the back
room). Surprisingly, hosts don’t verbally express any doubt
in their skill with the GMS; rather, I think, they are resigned
to the inefficiency of that system and (likely rightfully) no
longer feel to blame in that respect.
Modifications
My first use did not involve me actively tracking the num-
ber of guests in the restaurant; the final guide includes a sec-
tion for 15-minute checks over the course of the shift.
I added more whitespace. I underestimated how large my
script can become when I’m furiously writing.
I broke down several of my questions such that I ensured
each separate aspect of an issue had space accorded for it.

Observation Guide for #########
Date/Time:
~# of total staff on floor:
______ managers
______ servers
______ server assistants
______ hosts
______ bartenders
# of hosts on duty:
# of guests at:
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
___:___ AM/PM =
TOOLS, ENVIRONMENTS, AND PROCESSES
Are the hosts aware of any modifications to or issues with the seating plan?
Do they promulgate said changes to appropriate staff?
By what process do hosts seat large parties of uncertain size?
How much time do hosts allocate to GMS data entry versus guest conversation?
How are hosts performing bathroom checks?
During peak times?
When only one host is on duty?
EXPECTATION AND FEEDBACK
How do hosts react to correction/criticism by managers?
By servers?
By other hosts?
REWARD, RECOGNITION, AND FEEDBACK?
Are hosts promoting the Guest Satisfaction Survey?
What language are they using to do so?
How do hosts handle in-house guest complaints?
PERFORMANCE CAPACITY
Are hosts able to 'multitask'?
How are hosts handling server transitions?
Paperwork
Shift/closing/cut swaps
Late/no show servers:
COMPETENCE: KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, CONFIDENCE
Are hosts ever expressing doubt in their skills and knowledge?
To themselves?
To guests?
To managers/servers?
NOTES:

Appendix G
Force Field Analysis
ISLT 9474: Force Field Analysis Report
Phil Hobrla
8 Nov 2015

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS REPORT 2
Workplace Description
Stakeholders
The five or six people trained for the duties of and working as hosts at are
supplemented by managers and trainers. Feedback from the corporate office and from guests via the
Guest Satisfaction Survey also informs the agency of the on-site stakeholders.
Delivery Space
Physically, the following proposed change would mainly transpire outside of the physical store.
This could potentially present challenges as staff must be clocked in for training. There is likely a
provided-for or informal means by which this training can be delivered such that the time of the
hosts (which is is short supply, as most are students at ) is
respected.

Proposed Change
A MediaWiki-based wiki will be created wherein managers, hosts, and host trainers will
be given accounts and invited to contribute. The hoped-for outcome: best practices
will organically coalesce following the posting of initial procedural outlines (etc. . . ) and
sustained feedback and evaluation by stakeholders. This choice of learning environment
is supported by the age and educational level of the majority of the hosts: those in their
early twenties pursuing a two- or four-year degree are likely to have interacted often
with Wikipedia, which is based on MediaWiki. Wikis, being both collaborative and
cooperative, allow for varying degrees and means of participation.

FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS REPORT 3
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
3
Allows managers and hosts to
be on the same page in re. best
practices and (un)acceptable
conduct
Best practices and minimal ac-
ceptable conduct are not de-
termined by restaurant manage-
ment but rather by the corporate
oﬃce
2
5
Could increase the host/lobby-
speciﬁc GMS rating, with an end
goal of Lighthouse status
Guests rarely–if ever–give
pointed GSS feedback on hosts
5
5
Could reduce the inconsistent
use of the GMS, esp. during
server transitions
Rumors abound that the GMS
is soon being replaced
2
4
Prevents institutional knowledge
loss occurring from turnover
Unclear if the host- and trainer-
held institutional knowledge,
which seems to focus on short-
cuts, is aligned with the expec-
tations of management.
3
2
Engages hosts by asking them to
contribute
Hosts may not want to con-
tribute.
5
5
Provides an understanding of in-
correct host procedures
Hosts may not want to con-
tribute further if they’re criti-
cized for doing so
4
5
Shifts part of training burden on-
line
Newly trained hosts may not be
able to learn from a wiki.
3
3
Demonstrates management’s
proactivity.
Needs consistent managerial
oversight to be a quality,
evergreen learning environment.
4
32 <Total >28

Actions to Be Taken
The wiki now will be set up such that an especially end-user-friendly distribution is
implemented. The management will share a written statement that encourages the frank
sharing (without, expect in signiﬁcant cases, any fear of real or threatened retaliation) of
the actual, day-to-day procedures of the hosts. Also, the previously hoped-for emphasis
on organic, non-prompted contribution to the wiki should be de-emphasized in favor of
a more strict, training-linked couching.

Appendix H
Test Questions
ISLT 9474: Test Items Assignment
Phil Hobrla
1 Dec 2015
Optimal for 3 Questions
Hosts will remember and apply heuristics for making guests feel welcome through conversation
and efficient host-server-manager communication.
Questions
Question 1: remembering
Which of the following four phrases is associated with ’s core value of “Genuine
Caring”?
1. “Hi there, how are you all doing today?”
2. “So, are we celebrating anything today?” *
3. “Is this your first time at ?”
4. “So, are we up to anything fun today?”
Question 2: remembering
When a guest responds to your leading question with a single-word reply, followed by silence,
this is a sign they DO NOT want to make conversation.
1. True *
2. False
Question 3: applying
A small party arrives at 3:30 PM, 15 minutes before the arrival of the first evening server.
However, current servers are ‘flexed’ to four tables each, but the restaurant appears empty from the
front (the guest’s view). With this and your training in mind, which of the eight potential actions
should you take, and in what order?
I. Continually apologize: “I’m so sorry. . . we’re on a wait.”
II. Check and see if 3:45 PM server is able to clock in early
III. Seat guests at a table, then alert the manager on duty
IV. Seat guests at a table, then give it to a lunch server

TEST ITEMS 2
V. Ask each lunch server if they can take a ﬁfth table
VI. Casually make conversation with the guests as they wait
VII. Do the drink order for the guests’ table (time-willing)
VIII. Make the guests wait at the host stand until 3:45 PM
1. I, II, IV, V, and III
2. VI, II, III, and VII
3. VI, V, II, III, and VII *
4. I, VI, V, II, III, and VII

phobrla-FinalReport

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to phobrla-FinalReport

Similar to phobrla-FinalReport (20)

phobrla-FinalReport