You Get What You Inspect, Not What You Expect

Why having good restaurant systems isn't enough—and what leaders must do to make sure they actually work

By Jamie Galler | Restaurant Advisor

Most experienced restaurant operators understand the importance of systems.

Recipes. Prep lists. Opening and closing checklists. Line checks. Temperature logs. Cleaning schedules. Labor targets. Inventory procedures. Service standards.

Successful restaurant companies don't leave these things to chance. They build processes designed to produce consistent results.

But there's an important distinction:

Having a system and managing a system are not the same thing.

I learned just how significant that distinction can be while working with an experienced restaurant operator.

They Had the Systems

This client understood that successful restaurant brands are built on strong systems and processes.

In fact, earlier in his career he had worked as a General Manager for a highly respected and successful full-service restaurant brand. He had seen firsthand how disciplined operating systems could create consistency across a restaurant organization.

Later, when he built his own three-restaurant group, he brought many of those same systems and processes with him.

He wasn't operating by the seat of his pants.

He had checklists.

He had standards.

He had procedures.

He had many of the tools he'd successfully used as a GM.

But his restaurants weren't performing as well as he expected.

That was why he initially reached out to me.

His frustration was understandable.

If these systems had helped produce results at a successful restaurant brand, why weren't they producing the same results in his restaurants?

As we began working together, the answer became painfully obvious.

The Systems Weren't the Problem

The systems were there.

What wasn't there was consistent follow-up.

He had established expectations, but he wasn't regularly verifying that his people were executing those expectations correctly and consistently.

Checklists existed.

But were they being completed properly?

Procedures had been established.

But were people still following them?

Standards had been communicated.

But had those standards gradually changed?

He was assuming things were being done the way he expected them to be done.

He was expecting instead of inspecting.

And that's a very different thing.

We Didn't Add More Systems

One of the easiest responses to an operational problem is to create another procedure.

Another checklist.

Another meeting.

Another form.

Another rule.

But that wasn't what this operator needed.

He already had plenty of tools.

Instead, we triaged the operation and identified the relatively small number of priorities that mattered most.

Then he began consistently inspecting them.

When execution wasn't meeting the standard, he took corrective action.

When employees were executing particularly well, he recognized and reinforced those behaviors.

And once he began paying attention to the consistent and proper use of the systems already in place, results began improving rapidly.

The experience reinforced an operating principle I've believed in throughout my career:

You get what you inspect, not what you expect.

Expectations Aren't Systems

Every restaurant has expectations.

The walk-in should be organized.

Recipes should be followed.

The line should be ready before service.

Bathrooms should be clean.

Employees should arrive on time.

Opening and closing procedures should be completed.

Managers should control labor.

Food should leave the kitchen looking the way it's supposed to look.

But saying something is important doesn't make it happen.

Training someone once doesn't make it permanent.

And putting a procedure in a binder doesn't make it a system.

A standard only remains a standard when the organization consistently reinforces it.

Without follow-up, standards begin to drift.

Shortcuts creep in.

New employees learn from existing employees rather than from the original standard.

Something gets skipped during a busy shift. Nothing happens. So it gets skipped again.

Eventually, what was once an exception becomes normal.

Nobody officially changed the standard.

The restaurant simply stopped managing it.

Trust, But Verify

This is where another familiar management principle becomes relevant:

Trust, but verify.

Some managers interpret verification as a lack of trust.

I don't.

Trust your people.

Give managers authority.

Delegate responsibility.

Allow employees to do their jobs without someone constantly looking over their shoulders.

But trust isn't the absence of accountability.

If something matters to your guests, your employees or your profitability, there should be a way to know whether it's actually happening.

That might mean a manager conducts a line check before every meal period.

Recipes and portions are periodically audited.

Inventory counts are reviewed for unusual variances.

Managers visit tables during service.

Labor is compared with a target throughout the day.

Opening and closing checklists are actually inspected rather than simply signed.

The owner occasionally orders a menu item and looks at it through the eyes of a guest.

That's not micromanagement.

That's management.

Don't Inspect Everything

There's an important caveat.

The answer isn't to have managers spend their entire day walking around with clipboards checking everything everyone does.

That creates bureaucracy, not accountability.

The lesson from my three-restaurant client wasn't that we needed to inspect more things.

It was that we needed to determine which things mattered most.

That's why we triaged.

Every restaurant has a handful of operational disciplines that disproportionately affect its results.

Food quality.

Cleanliness.

Ticket times.

Labor.

Portion control.

Food safety.

Guest interaction.

Cash controls.

Whatever those priorities are for your restaurant, start there.

Don't inspect everything. Inspect what matters.

People Pay Attention to What You Pay Attention To

This may be the most important part of the principle.

Employees quickly learn the difference between what management says is important and what management demonstrates is important.

Suppose you repeatedly tell the kitchen that plate presentation is critical.

But managers rarely stand at the window and look at the food.

What message are you really sending?

Or perhaps there's a restroom inspection sheet hanging on the wall.

Employees initial it every 30 minutes.

But the general manager rarely walks into the restroom.

What has the organization learned?

That completing the sheet matters more than the condition of the restroom.

Your actions tell people which standards actually matter.

If you review labor every day, managers learn that labor matters.

If you regularly taste the food, employees learn that food quality matters.

If you inspect the walk-in, organization becomes more important.

If you ask about guest complaints and follow up on them, managers pay closer attention to the guest experience.

Your people pay attention to what you pay attention to.

Inspection Isn't About Catching People Doing Something Wrong

There's another important side to this.

Inspection shouldn't become a “gotcha” exercise.

If managers only inspect in order to find mistakes, employees will quickly view the process as policing.

The objective should be to determine whether the restaurant is consistently executing its standards.

Sometimes you'll find something that needs correction.

But you should also find people doing things right.

That matters.

I've written before about the importance of catching employees doing things right. The two principles fit together naturally.

If you inspect the line and every station is perfectly prepared, recognize it.

If a cook is consistently executing a plate exactly to specification, say something.

If the restroom is spotless during a busy Saturday night, recognize the employee responsible.

If a manager adjusts staffing appropriately when sales unexpectedly slow down, acknowledge it.

Inspection should create both corrective action and positive reinforcement.

Because what gets recognized gets repeated.

The Real Question: Do You Need Another System?

My experience with this client also reinforced another question I now think operators should ask themselves before creating another process:

Do we need another system, or do we need to start managing the one we already have?

That's an important distinction.

Restaurant operators aren't generally short on checklists.

The internet can give you another checklist in seconds.

The harder part is creating an operating culture in which important standards are consistently executed.

That requires leadership.

Set the standard.

Train the standard.

Inspect the standard.

Correct what's off.

Recognize what's right.

Repeat.

That's how a procedure becomes a habit.

And eventually, that's how habits become culture.

The Goal Isn't More Inspection

The ultimate goal isn't an owner who checks everything.

In fact, if the owner has to personally inspect everything forever, the system still isn't working.

The goal is to build an organization in which managers understand what matters, employees understand the standards, accountability is clear and the operation increasingly protects those standards on its own.

That's what the highly successful restaurant brand my client had previously worked for understood.

Their systems weren't successful simply because someone had created good checklists and procedures.

They worked because the organization had developed the management discipline necessary to consistently execute and reinforce them.

That's the part that's easy to miss when we try to replicate what successful restaurant companies do.

We copy the tool.

But sometimes we fail to copy the management discipline behind the tool.

The Operator Challenge

Pick one standard in your restaurant that you consider non-negotiable.

Not ten.

One.

Then ask yourself:

What exactly is the standard?

Does everyone responsible understand it?

How do I know it's actually happening?

Who is responsible for verifying it?

What happens when execution doesn't meet the standard?

What happens when someone executes it exceptionally well?

And perhaps the most important question:

Do we need another system, or do we need to start managing the one we already have?

If your answer to “How do I know this is happening?” is:

“Because my people know they're supposed to do it,”

you may have an expectation.

You don't yet have accountability.

Trust your people.

Give them responsibility.

Let them do their jobs.

But when something truly matters to your restaurant, don't simply assume it's happening.

Inspect what matters. Correct what isn't working. Recognize what is.

Because ultimately:

You get what you inspect, not what you expect.

Jamie Galler
Restaurant Advisor
The Practical Creative

Practical Solutions. Creative Approaches. Measurable Outcomes.

Helping independent restaurants and restaurant groups improve profitability, grow sales, build better operations and develop stronger leaders.

Want a clearer view of the numbers driving your restaurant's profitability?

The Practical Creative helps restaurant operators build practical measurement systems, identify performance gaps and turn operating data into measurable financial results. Schedule a complimentary discovery meeting at thepracticalcreative.com.