Unwatered flowers. Are we solving the wrong restaurant problem?
Costs rise and staff leave, yet the meeting focuses on unwatered flowers. A practical look at responsibility, micromanagement and finding the real cause.
The side of hospitality guests do not see
I have worked in hospitality for over 25 years. I entered the industry almost by accident, as a student looking for work that fitted around my studies. I quickly found my feet and was fortunate to join a business with training, standards and people I could learn from. Quality, commitment and responsibility mattered.
Over time, I discovered another side of the work: rotas, stocktakes, conversations with staff, cost analysis and daily decisions. From that perspective, I repeatedly saw a particular pattern: we expect commitment while limiting people’s influence over the outcomes they are responsible for.
This is not about finding someone to blame. Problems in hospitality rarely come down to one person. It is worth asking whether the way we manage helps resolve an issue or merely gives us a temporary sense of control.
Responsibility without authority
A manager is expected to develop the team, control costs and improve performance. When they try to change how work is organised, every decision needs approval. They are responsible for staff but cannot influence some staffing decisions. They answer for costs but do not control some purchases.
Not every decision should belong to the manager. Owners have every right to set boundaries, budgets and standards. Problems arise when those boundaries are unclear or change without explanation, while accountability remains unchanged.
How long can someone stay fully committed without knowing what they can actually decide? Development raises a similar question. Not everyone wants promotion, but good work should open a clear conversation about greater autonomy, skills, responsibility or pay.
Unwatered flowers
I remember businesses with unexplained stock discrepancies, little training, poorly planned rotas, staff departures and rising costs. Yet conversations would quickly turn to unwatered flowers or dirty table legs.
The flowers should be watered and the tables clean. The issue is proportion. When a visible detail displaces discussion of costs, organisation and staff turnover, we fix what is easiest to point at rather than establish where improvement should begin.
A table leg is easy to discuss. The problem is visible, someone can be assigned and told to fix it. It is harder to ask why the way we work is not producing the results we need.
Details can create a sense of control
Micromanagement, closely controlling how almost every task is performed, need not come from bad intentions. An owner has invested money and carries the risk. Wanting to know what is happening is understandable.
But an owner can personally approve every rota without knowing the full cost of an hour of work. They can keep rearranging chairs without having a way to train new employees, or scrutinise purchases without understanding where losses arise.
That is the difference between monitoring individual actions and understanding the business. Details deserve attention, but cannot replace information about costs, quality, the team and recurring mistakes.
The organisation teaches people whether initiative is worthwhile
An employee suggests an improvement and takes responsibility. After repeatedly hearing “we have always done it differently”, having decisions changed without explanation or being overruled in front of the team, they may conclude that asking permission for everything is safer.
Eventually the owner says: “I have to do everything myself.” That may be true. But does nobody want responsibility, or has the way the business is managed discouraged independence?
This is not the only possible explanation. Skills, resources or the right person for the role may be missing. A conversation about trust must also examine competence, clear expectations and whether the task can realistically be completed.
Standards and trust can work together
I do not advocate letting everyone do whatever they want. Hospitality needs standards, responsibilities, numbers and checks. Reviewing outcomes alone is not enough either: working methods must also be checked where safety and quality depend on them.
When assigning responsibility, agree on decision-making authority too. What can the manager change independently? Within which budget? What requires consultation? How and when will results be reviewed? Clear answers give the owner oversight and the manager room to work.
Read how to clarify restaurant roles, standards and responsibility
What should you review at the next meeting?
Choose one recurring problem and separate the immediate correction from addressing its cause. Do not postpone urgent safety issues. Prioritise other matters according to their impact on guests, the team and business performance.
- Define the issue precisely. What keeps happening and which observations or figures support that conclusion?
- Check responsibility. Does the person have the time, skills and authority to make the necessary decision?
- Review the process. Is the instruction clear, practical and understood by the team?
- Agree one action, an owner and a deadline. Decide how you will recognise improvement.
- Return to the agreement and review the outcome, rather than restarting the same conversation at the next meeting.
Good diagnosis looks for the cause
A dirty table or unwatered flower is immediately visible. Unclear authority, inadequate preparation and contradictory instructions are less obvious. Their effects may still appear in costs, mistakes, staff turnover and the guest experience.
Sometimes the problem really is an unwatered flower and watering it is enough. Sometimes it is the most visible symptom of something that has been failing for a long time. Neither explanation should be assumed in advance.
When working with restaurants and hotel F&B operations, I combine data with observation of daily work and conversations with people. I look for a useful starting point for change. Good diagnosis is not about finding the easiest thing to point at. It is about understanding what lies behind the problem.