If you bought a troubled restaurant, would you retain the staff and chefs that caused the trouble ?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Many small businesses make this actual mistake when they take over an existing concern. They confuse familiarity with expertise.

[ElboRuum]

1. So, if I read you correctly...

Are you making the suggestion that the Obama admistration is akin to Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares?

[RichardRay]

2. It depends on why the business is troubled.

In many cases, you're damn straight I would. The other mistake a lot of people make when they take over control of a struggling business is to go to the 'new broom' extreme. It helps when one takes the time to find out why the business is struggling, determine how the present staff can be used to reduce the damage and assist in the turnaround.

I'll assume that you can carry the analogy on through...

[PretzelWarrior]

3. only an insane person takes over a failing restaurant.

[chowder66]

4. It Depends

What kind of proof do you have that these employees were the cause of trouble? How was it determined that they were responsible and who says so..... and if it was determined under the previous owner then why didn't they let the employees go?

I think I would interview the said "troublemakers" to get their point of view. Maybe the management wasn't good or the staff had their hands tied or were limited in their capacity that led to bad decisions, etc.

My work philosophy is always to try to save jobs when possible but you first have to find the reason for that possibility.

Also, you might retain those you question yet exhibit potential and use a probation period while you determine their value to your business. Remember, hiring new employees takes time and money so it is always good to see if there are any alternatives first. Plus you will most likely avoid nagging doubts/what if's later on.

[vaberella]

5. Depends actually. I have to know why "they" are to blame.

If they were trained incorrectly that's one thing. However, other cases could be that they weren't given the right incentives and otherwise could do well. There are too many factors, although my second one listed is a bit weak. In any event, I'd have to know the background of each and see if there are redeemable traits. Remember, nothing is Black and White...plenty of gray to go around.

[baldguy]

6. I would say, 9 times out of 10 the trouble is with the management.

[Fire1]

7. That's a failed comparison. But think what you will.

I'd much rather have someone in office who knows where the bodies are buried than a newbie. Hands down.

[spoony]

17. A lot of them are buried in the craters of our recent bombs

So of course he'd know where they are.

[Fire1]

19. That was not meant 'literally' but figuratively. n/t

[Thothmes]

8. First thing that I would try to do is

find out why the business failed. Some times, the staff and the chefs are not the problem. Some times the owner doesnt have a clue on how to run a restaurant. If after identifying the source of the problem, then take the appropriate action. Going in with the assumption that the taff and the chefs were the reason for failure could set you up for failure.

[polichick]

9. I'd give them all GIGANTIC bonuses! :)

[Occam Bandage]

10. Why did the restaurant fail? If many waiters did their job admirably, would you fire them anyway?

[emulatorloo]

11. The chef and the staff are great, the owner is a no nothing who can't market.

So yes I would keep the chef and the staff.

[angee_is_mad]

12. Who ARE YOU?

and where the HELL did you come from?

Just curious.

[masuki bance]

13. Why is this in GDP? nt

[Canuckistanian]

14. Why not? I should just "move on" and look to the future

The customers don't want me to "rock the boat". That would cause customers to doubt my commitment to the restaurant.

And besides, my suppliers wouldn't like a scandal. It might cut into their business.

And I depend on my suppliers, don't I?

[Historic NY]

15. no

[Mz Pip]

16. Maybe I'd keep the chef

but change the menu. Maybe the restaurant failed because the menu didn't appeal to the tastes of the customers and not necessarily because the chef couldn't cook.

[Jennicut]

18. Strangest analogy ever on DU. Reminds me of that show on Bravo

about the mean lady who rips on the staff at beauty salons and tries to remake them for the owners. Of Chef Ramsey and his screaming and swearing at restaurant owners when he tries to help them get a better business going.

[LWolf]

20. Of course not. nt

[mkultra]

21. you would keep key players assuming they are not a problem

Starting fresh is pretty stupid.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Depends on why the restaurant failed

If there was a consensus that the food was excellent but the service was lousy then I would keep the chefs and fire the management and possibly the waitstaff as well.

[Ikonoklast]

23. Restaurants fail due to bad or ineffective management.

If the owners or managers don't take control and direct the actions of their employees, they deserve what they get.

Bad menu? Management needs to change it. Employees can't unilaterally decide to do so.


It isn't always the fault of the rank and file for management's failings or lack of leadership.

Bad direction, bad results.


Good management can take the worst employee and make them into a star. It just takes the proper leadership.


Just like the people in Washington.