Words: 648
The customer also felt violated because her card was taken away and felt that her complaint about the food and service had been ignored. This was good for the general manager because she remained consistent with the restaurant rule and had to fire the waitress. Legal: The restaurant provided a peer preview program as an alternative to filing suit.
The waitress felt that she had been fired unjustly. The company dealt with her unhappiness correctly because they were willing to see the point of view from all sides and come up with a fair conclusion. From reading the case it is obvious that the manager and the company had huge influences in shaping the restaurant. The manager took part in commenting how the food was and decided if the waitress is right or wrong. The case shows us that the manager decided to fire the waitress because the waitress was thought to go against restaurant policy which is not to remove any property.
We think that the manager is right to view that taking away the comment card is wrong, but firing the waitress is just too harsh. The manager should have hear the waitress’s point of view first because it seemed like she had lost or misplaced the card accidental and not purposely to hide an evidence. In the meanwhile, the company also had a big part in this case because they had adopted a peer review program that is very helpful in order to help solve company problems. It saves a lot of money because the company does not have to face lawsuits every time a problem rises.
We believe that the company had done the right thing to use the peer review program to hear from all point of views and find a solution that is fair to everyone. We recommend that the company focus on training their employees and make sure they know clearly of the company’s policies and ethical guidance. This case explained that problems arises because the waitress don’t know that she’s actually going against the company’s policy when she was looking at the comment cards.
Also, the hostess felt like giving the keys to everyone as no big deal. This may cause major problems in the future because the company’s and customer’s privacy will be flawed. Right now: Red Lobster should fix their cooking equipment, so they could serve food with decent quality. They were found going against the policy in reheating leftover food because their cooking equipment was broken. Short-term: Red Lobster should train and inform its employees to improve their knowledge with the company’s policies. They should also be trained in ethical matters when serving customers.
Long-term: Red Lobster should make a guide or handbook hat lists their policies and give it to every employees, so there will be no surprises. Red Lobster should also keep their peer preview program that was successful in helping solve a problem in a cheaper and fair way. As mentioned above, the company’s previous actions are mostly on point. Although, actions that could be fixed are: fixing the cooking equipment, encourage employees to improve their knowledge with the company’s policy, and also be ethical in serving customers such as providing fresh and not reheated food.
The book mentioned that the key to an effective stakeholder management, n other words to keep stakeholders happy, is in the company’s implementations. Corporate social responsibility is made operable when companies translate their stakeholder dialogue into practice. In this Case, Red Lobster should listen not only to its customers opinion but also their employee’s to best fulfill customer’s needs while remaining true to the company’s beliefs and values. “It should be noted that organizations develop learning processes over time in implementing their changing or evolving stakeholder orientations. ”