1 CASE STUDY 2: CINCINNATI SUPER SUBS

2 Cincinnati Super Subs is one of the larger Super Subs outlets, a chain of 300 take-away
3 restaurants in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. This outlet has a restaurant manager, an assistant
4 manager, and several part-time team leaders. The restaurant manager rarely has time to serve
5 customers, and frontline work by managers is discouraged by the head office. The assistant
6 manager serves customers for a couple of hours during the busy lunchtime but otherwise
7 assists the restaurant manager with purchasing, accounts, hiring, and other operations. Most
8 team leaders are college students and serve customers alongside other employees, particularly
9 from late afternoon to night closing. Most employees are also students who work part-time; a
10 few are in high school. All regular staff earns minimum pay rates.

11 Cincinnati Super Subs has experienced below-average profitability over the past 18
12 months, which has reduced the monthly bonus paid to the restaurant manager and assistant
13 manager. This bonus is calculated by percentage of “wastage” (unsold, damaged, or
14 unaccounted for food and drinks) relative to sales; the lower the percentage of wastage, the
15 higher the bonus. Wastage occurs when employees drop or spill food, cut up more toppings
16 than are sold, burn heated subs, prepare an order incorrectly, and eat or give away food
17 without permission. When employees make mistakes, the expense is supposed to come out of
18 their paycheck. Unauthorized eating and giving away food are grounds for immediate
19 dismissal. However, team leaders are reluctant to report any accidental or deliberate wastage,
20 even when confronted by the restaurant manager about the store’s high wastage over the
21 previous week and month. One team leader who reported several accidental wastage
22 incidents eventually quit after being snubbed by coworkers who attended the same college
23 classes.

24 Cincinnati Super Subs gives employees a food allowance if they work continuously for at
25 least four and one-half hours. Staff complains that the allowance is meager and that they are
26 often ineligible for the food allowance because many shifts are only three or four hours.
27 Employees who work these shorter shifts sometimes help themselves to food and drinks
28 when the managers aren’t around, claiming that their hard work justifies the free meal. Some
29 also claim the food is a low company expense and makes up for their small paycheck, relative
30 to what many of their friends earn elsewhere. Several (but not most) employees give some of
31 their friends generous helpings as well as occasional free soft drinks and chips. Employees
32 say handing out free food to friends makes them more popular with their peers. Five months
33 ago, the Cincinnati restaurant’s wastage (mainly deliberate wastage) had risen to the point
34 where the two managers no longer received a bonus. The restaurant manager reacted by
35 giving the food allowance only to those who work for six or more hours in a single shift. This
36 action excluded even more staff from receiving the food allowance, but it did not discourage
37 employees from eating or giving away food. However, almost 20 percent of the experienced
38 college staff left for other jobs over the following two months. Many of those who stayed
39 discouraged friends from considering jobs at Super Subs. Morale declined, which dampened
40 the fun atmosphere that had been experienced to some extent in past times. Relations between
41 employees and managers soured further.
42 With relatively low unemployment, the restaurant manager found it difficult to hire
43 replacements, particularly people with previous work experience of any kind. Temporary
44 staff shortages required the two managers to spend more time working in food preparation
45 and training the new staff. Their increased presence in the restaurant significantly reduced
46 deliberate wastage, but accidental wastage increased somewhat as the greater number of
47 inexperienced staff made more mistakes. After three months, Cincinnati Super Subs’
48 manager and assistant manager were confident that the situation had improved, so they spent
49 less time training staff and serving customers. Indeed, they received a moderate bonus after
50 the third month in the store. However, wastage increased again soon after the managers
51 withdrew from daily operations. The experienced employees started eating more food, and
52 the new staff soon joined this practice. Exasperated, the restaurant manager took bolder steps.
53 He completely removed the food allowance and threatened to fire any employee caught
54 consuming or giving away food. Wastage dropped somewhat over the next month but is now
55 creeping upward again.

Discussion questions

1) Based on the description from line 42 to 50 and using the A-B-Cs of organisational
behaviour modification, arrange the action of the two managers affecting the
employee. (6 marks)

2) It is stated that people learn the consequences of behaviour by observing or hearing

about what happened to other people. Do you agree that the action of the restaurant
manager of taking the bolder steps (line 52 to 53) of firing one employee would affect
other employees’ behaviour? Tell us your opinion (5 marks)

3) It is known that in Behaviour Modelling theory, people learn by imitating and

practising the behaviours of others. If it is true, how could the two managers stop the
employee from handing out free food to friends? (line 30 to 32) (5 marks)

4) As restaurant manager, how you decide to improve the meal allowance for the
employee? (line 24 to 26) (4 marks)

Total: 20 marks