The Restaurant Manager and the Chef: Diagnosis of a Systemic Conflict and an Engineering Solution

There is a persistent, almost axiomatic belief in the professional HoReCa community: the restaurant manager and the hef practically never work as a team. This is not just an observation—it is a diagnosis that the industry has given itself. Unfortunately, this belief has a basis, but accepting it as inevitable means resigning oneself to one of the most significant internal brakes on growth and profitability. What are the origins of this profound confrontation? Why can't two top managers of an establishment, who equally influence its success and are responsible for the financial result, learn to speak the same language? Is this antagonism between kitchen and dining room staff a consequence of professional disagreements or, perhaps, trivial personal ambitions? The answers to these questions are critically important, because without resolving this basic, ideological conflict between key figures, we are unlikely to come close to solving the main task: how to attract and retain guests. While two captains argue over the helm, the ship drifts.

The authors admit that this section of the book was not easy for them, and this is deeply revealing. Many hours were spent on arguments and discussions before a unified position was developed. And this is not surprising, because the authors themselves for many years waged fierce positional battles with each other on the fronts of the "war of managers and head chefs," each defending the right of their colleagues to a leading role. Their final conclusion, hard-won and tested by experience, is encouraging: the conflict between managers and chefs is a problem largely contrived, generated by the system, not by people. And most importantly—reconciliation between the parties can be surprisingly easy and quick if approached not as a psychological but as a managerial challenge.

Chapter 1. Two Truths, Two Universes: Historical and Role-Based Prerequisites for Conflict

To be fair, it should be recognized as obvious: a good restaurant is, first and foremost, "made" by its kitchen and, consequently, the head chef. However, an important clarification is needed here. In the modern international understanding, which has long become the standard for successful business, a head chef is not only a culinary artist. This is a full-fledged manager, the manager of the most complex production, who determines the key financial indicators of the establishment's operation. His area of responsibility includes: the material cost of dishes (food cost), calculation of markup coefficients, management of the structure of fixed and variable production costs, control of inventory turnover. In many cultures, especially in classic gastronomic restaurants, the head chef also manages the work of the dining room, negotiates with guests and suppliers, and participates in the formation of the annual plan and budget. He is the CEO of the food block, an integral part of the business brain of the establishment.

However, in many regions, a different management model has historically developed, inherited from the system of centralized public catering. In it, key responsibilities related to economic activity were strictly delineated between the director, the accountant, and the production manager. The latter is the prototype of the modern head chef in this paradigm. Over time, guest preferences, concepts, and assortments have changed radically, but the very architecture of management, unfortunately, in many cases has undergone only cosmetic changes. In this model, the manager or director of the restaurant historically is the body of both legislative and executive power in one person. He determines which dishes proposed by the head chef will make it to the final menu, which suppliers will make deliveries, and what the pricing policy will be. The functional duties of the head chef in this system are narrowed to managing kitchen staff, operational purchases, and, in fact, cooking dishes with subsequent transfer to the dining room.

It is important to note that such a balance of power, as a rule, initially suits both parties, forming a comfort zone. The manager is responsible to the founders for the financial result, and the head chef is responsible to the manager for the quality of the kitchen. A tacit "non-aggression pact" is concluded between them. In the ordinary, measured life of a restaurant, no one encroaches on the territorial integrity, rights, and freedoms of the neighboring "state." Two worlds, separated by a partition between the dining room and the kitchen, exist in parallel dimensions. Nothing disturbs the peace of these two countries, but only until the first serious critical incident occurs.

Chapter 2. The Mechanism of Mutual Destruction: From "Pact" to "War" and Its Diagnosis

It is no secret that in open or hidden conflicts, the parties always blame each other. The scenario is pathologically repetitive. The head chef is often declared "guilty" of the decline in consumer demand for certain dishes. The manager is almost always recognized as "incompetent" in attracting additional guests. The logic is simple and destructive: due to the lack of proper occupancy of the establishment, products spoil in the kitchen, write-offs increase, and food cost rises. Due to poor-quality or untimely work of the kitchen, regular, most valuable guests leave. The conflict, originating at the point of a specific incident, begins to grow like a snowball, involving the entire team in its orbit, and often leads to one of the participants being forced to lay down their arms—that is, to leave the establishment. Alas, business owners are often reluctant and untimely to intervene in such conflicts, preferring to remain neutral and observe from the sidelines who will "outlast" whom. As a rule, the victims of this conflict, due to greater "replaceability," are the head chefs. Their frequent job changes catastrophically affect not only the stability of quality but also the prospects of their personal careers and professional self-esteem.

To translate the conversation from the plane of emotions and mutual accusations to the plane of facts and systemic analysis, the authors provide an exhaustive diagnostic tool—Table 1. List of mutual complaints. This is not just a collection of grievances—it is a detailed map of breaks in business processes, where each line is a symptom of a specific management dysfunction.

Table 1. List of mutual complaints of managers and head chefs of restaurants

Complaints of head chefs about managers	Complaints of managers about head chefs
1. The manager does not understand that a quality dish cannot be made from products "for two pennies."	1. The head chef always and in everything covers for his subordinates.
2. The manager doesn't care that raw materials come in unstable quality, he chooses a supplier at his own discretion.	2. Cooks deliberately set up waiters during rush hour by delaying dishes.
3. Waiters do not pick up dishes on time; guests remain dissatisfied that dishes are brought cold, that they have to wait.	3. Cooks release dishes of inappropriate temperature and quality, do not comply with the presentation form established by the chef.
4. Waiters do not know the menu and do not learn the cooking technology of dishes. Therefore, dishes sell poorly.	4. Cooks work only during the production of preparations and the release of dishes to the dining room, and all other time they idle.
5. Waiters yell at cooks, demand to give the dish to the dining room faster, creating a nervous atmosphere.	5. Cooks hide product write-offs and under-portion ingredients in dishes to conceal shortages.
6. Managers do not fully convey to the cooks the wishes of guests who have ordered a banquet. As a result, either something is missing on the table, or dishes are served improperly.	6. The head chef does not want to deal with administrative issues of production and shifts this work onto the manager.
7. Managers save on everything and do not buy equipment, inventory, or consumables required in the kitchen.	7. The head chef constantly asks to buy something for the kitchen, not thinking that the restaurant has no money for it.
8. Managers demand to minimize write-offs, but cannot plan the traffic of the establishment.	8. The head chef wants to cook only what he likes. He is not ready to show initiative, improvise, and introduce new items on the menu.
9. The manager gives orders to line cooks in the absence of the head chef, interferes in the work of the kitchen.	9. The head chef sets the team of cooks against the manager, and they do not respect him.
10. The manager publicly reprimands the head chef, undermining his authority in the eyes of subordinates.	10. The head chef does not want to deal with accounting and control of the material cost of dishes. The head chef does not know how or does not want to economize.
11. The manager places responsibility for the decrease in the establishment's revenue on the head chef and line cooks.	11. The head chef does not want to train waiters in dish presentation, explaining that the latter still do not remember anything and do not use it in their work.
12. The manager demands the introduction of new dishes on the menu, and then blames the chef if the new dishes do not sell.	12. The head chef does not want to go out to the dining room and resolve conflict situations with guests dissatisfied with the quality of food.
13. The manager keeps records incorrectly, so during inventory, the balances "do not match."	13. The head chef does not want to admit his mistakes in work and shifts the blame to food suppliers.
14. The manager accuses the head chef of his subordinates stealing.	14. The head chef lobbies for the interests of specific suppliers and allegedly takes a bribe for it.
15. The manager constantly asks to cut another cook, explaining this by the need to save money.	15. The head chef tries to resolve issues directly with the founders over the manager's head.
16. The manager does not approve internships, training, and master class visits for the head chef.	16. The head chef refuses to work promptly, demanding to be informed in advance about new reservations. Because of this, the restaurant refuses banquets ordered on the same day and loses profit.
17. The manager interferes in the process of developing technical and technological charts, asks the head chef to do costing, i.e., to do his work.	17. The head chef refuses to work in a team and help the manager in his work. He is always trying to narrow the scope of his responsibilities and avoid responsibility.
18. The manager compares the kitchen of his restaurant with the kitchens of other establishments, listing the advantages of competitors.	18. Cooks are unmanageable in the absence of the head chef and in everything refer to him, avoiding extra work.
19. The manager, without consulting, accepts an order for an urgent banquet or takes on obligations that the chef cannot fulfill in a short time.	19. The head chef constantly tries to inflate the staff of cooks and gives a lot of far-fetched arguments.
20. The manager makes decisions within the competence of the head chef without notifying him.	20. The head chef meets any initiative of the manager with hostility, citing the fact that the latter never worked a day in the kitchen.

The analysis of this table is a key moment in rethinking the conflict. It is important to see that what we have before us is not two independent lists of complaints, but a single, yet broken dialogue. Each complaint on the left (from the chef) finds its mirror, logical reflection in a complaint on the right (from the manager). The conflict arises not because one is right and the other is wrong. It arises because the system forces them to defend narrow departmental, partial truths, instead of jointly defending the integrity of the business process.

The chef accuses the dining room of disorganization and lack of product knowledge—the manager accuses the kitchen of sabotage and irresponsibility. The chef demands resources and respect for technology—the manager demands economy and submission to commercial logic. This is a classic contradiction that arises where there are no common, shared goals and clearly defined rules of interaction.

Chapter 3. "Chef's Notes": The Menu as the Main Battlefield and Point of Understanding

In the block "Chef's Notes," the authors delve into an analysis of perhaps the most frequent and painful point of collision—the restaurant menu. The head chef, creating the menu, naturally relies on his personal preferences, knowledge, skills, and his own taste, shaped by traditions and only partially adjusted by modern trends. Sometimes the menu is also built on the personal preferences of the restaurateur—the owner or manager. These subjective preferences affect not only the qualitative composition (what to cook) but also the quantitative composition of the menu (how many items to offer). Many restaurateurs mistakenly strive to make the list of dishes in the menu as huge as possible, justifying this by the desire to have a greater probability of "hitting" the wishes of any guest. Such an approach can be justified only in specific formats, for example, in restaurants where food is prepared according to the principle of a quick "constructor" from simple, non-perishable preparations. In restaurants where each dish is a complex technological process requiring quality control at all stages, such an approach is unacceptable. It is important to understand that the menu is not a novel whose volume impresses, but a list of possibilities, where each possibility must be flawlessly implementable. An extensive menu often even irritates guests, complicating an already difficult choice.

It is quite understandable that in practice it is difficult to avoid a conflict of approaches between the manager and the head chef regarding the composition of the menu. Often such conflicts acquire a protracted, exhausting character, which cannot positively affect the results of the entire establishment. If your establishment has prerequisites for such a conflict, the authors strongly recommend taking into account the following direct appeals, formulated as a memorandum for both sides.

• To the Restaurateur (Manager): "Dear restaurateur, remember that the principles of cooking homemade food are very different from the techniques of cooking in a restaurant. Remember that all restaurant food is based on preparations, and the more there are, the more difficult it is for the head chef to control them while ensuring stable quality. Do not demand to remove borscht from the menu if it is cooked differently than your grandmother cooked it (and, God willing, still cooks!). Your head chef's borscht is simply different! Do not offend the head chef, he is proud."

• To the Head Chef: "You, colleague, should understand that your director or manager travels a lot, goes to different restaurants. He has something to compare your food with, he looks at the dish through the eyes of a guest, and we sometimes cannot break away from the routine and look at our own cooking in the setting of the dining room. If the manager has comments on your dish or a desire to remove it from the menu, it is unlikely that these are nitpicks. Remember that you are cooking not for specialists, but for ordinary people, to whom, I hope, you also refer the owner and the manager. Your ambitions are realized when you open your own establishment, and this time, perhaps, is not far off…"

Chapter 4. The Responsibility Matrix: From Diagnosis to Treatment—An Engineering Protocol

In his commentary, Ilya Lazerson calls on the two main figures of the "case"—the professional team of the food establishment—to try to understand and accept each other's positions. For this purpose, the authors created their school—to bring positions closer and convey the importance of each other's work. From their point of view, the main cause of conflicts is the absence of a clear, specific, formalized (that is, put on paper) and legitimate system for delineating authority and functional responsibilities. The first question every restaurateur should ask themselves: "Do job descriptions for the head chef and manager exist in your restaurant? Did your specialists participate in their development?"

To provide a practical tool for answering this question, the authors offer not theory, but a ready-made blueprint—Table 2. Distribution of areas of responsibility. This is an example of a matrix on which transparent "rules of the game" can be built.

Table 2. Distribution of areas of responsibility between the head chef and the restaurant manager

Responsibility of the restaurant manager	Responsibility of the restaurant head chef
1. Preparation of the dining room for work.	1. Laboratory testing of new raw materials.
2. Maintenance of the dining room, furniture, interior items, and decor in good condition.	2. Purchasing.
3. Dry and wet cleaning of the dining room.	3. Organization of storage of raw materials and material assets.
4. Periodic general cleaning of the dining room.	4. Execution of dining room orders.
5. Condition of textiles and control over their timely laundering.	5. Technological development of the menu, preparation of technical-technological maps and costing cards.
6. Condition of dishes and cutlery.	6. Operation and maintenance of equipment and inventory.
7. Preparation of personal wardrobes for work.	7. Inventory and production accounting.
8. Sales in the dining room and telephone sales.	8. Sanitation and hygiene (dishes, inventory, personnel).
9. Meeting, seeing off, serving guests.	9. Production of short-term and long-term preparations.
10. Printing of printed materials.	10. Quality control of products.
11. Receipt of goods and accounting in the bar.	11. Fulfillment of financial and economic indicators (of the kitchen).
12. Maintenance of equipment and inventory (of the dining room).	12. Recruitment, production training, and certification (of kitchen staff).
13. Correct operation of POS terminals and automated control systems.
14. Inventories (of the dining room, bar).
15. Sales and CRM accounting of guests.
16. Recruitment, training, and certification (of dining room staff).

The table above and the detailed job descriptions based on it are precisely that "engineering protocol" that helps top managers agree on clear and transparent rules of the game on their common field. The "I Am the Restaurant" concept discussed earlier can be effectively implemented only if both the head chef and the manager become carriers of this new ideology. Surprisingly, both—regardless of the owners' motivational policies—as a rule, psychologically "appropriate" the establishment, that is, internally accept this concept.

This credit of trust and loyalty is the most powerful but often untapped resource. The restaurateur's task is not to choose a side but to initiate a structured dialogue, providing a tool such as a responsibility matrix. Only then can the two "sovereign states" conclude not a "non-aggression pact" but a "treaty on a strategic alliance," where the kitchen is responsible for the power and quality of the strike, and the dining room is responsible for reconnaissance, targeting, and communication with the ultimate goal—the guest. This is the only way to turn internal conflict into a source of indisputable competitive advantage.

by Fedor Sokirianskii