Cooks vs. Servers (the responses...page 1)

I don't know that good cooks are any more scarce than good servers, but good cooks will give you great food and good servers great service. Great food is always great food, but good service is useless without good food. So I'd have to take the cook.

– Robert B.12/28/99 WorldTable.com

Re: "People will come back to a place with good food if they get great service. They might come back to a place with great food if they only get good service."

If the food is disappointing, I don't go back at all. If the food is great, I can probably survive all sorts of service problems as long as the food arrives in a condition that renders it still great to eat and the price is in line with the total package received or at least it's difficult to find better value elsewhere. Just remember I find no value in bad food at any price and I want my soup in mouth, not my lap.

Re:"Yes, servers are a dime a dozen, but great servers are an incredibly rare breed. They can actively increase your business, both through effective selling and by building a regular clientele."
Probably true, but on the individual level, I doubt a great server could sell me anything if he couldn't serve me great food.

Re: "I'll take the great server."

I suspect a great server could be trained in shorter time than a great cook. Great cooks are far rarer than great servers.

Re: "This is going to be a hot thread, Mark. I'm looking forward to the can of worms you've opened."

We'll see how hot a thread it is. My great disappointment with the group has been that threads relating to ketchup and free refills of soft drinks tend to run longer and hotter than serious discussions of fine food. Allow me to play Devil's advocate too. Given that a really fine establishment, that sort of place that would rate three, or even two Michelin stars in Paris, cannot survive without both great food and great service, would it be easier to attract great servers to a restaurant that was known for it's food, or great cooks to a restaurant that was known for it's service? It's possibly a chicken and egg question, but if you need both, which one is the more important to attract the other? 

- Robert B. 1/1/00

...you can have the best food in the world, but w/o great service your restaurant will be empty every night of the week... 

-DM 1/1/00

I often have the feeling the average diner has some quirky need in terms of food and service but really would not recognize good food or service if it hit him in the face.  Nevertheless, I can point out numerous restaurants with both poor service and mediocre food that are doing quite well and have for some time. For some of these financial successes it's a matter of being in the right place at the right time. For others it's a matter of hitting the right price point. For still others it's a matter of status or celebrity seeking that draws customers in the door. And finally there those places that pride themselves on surly waiters. 

– Robert Buxbaum 1/1/00

Re:  "I suspect a great server could be trained in shorter time than a great cook"

Sticking with the devil's advocate role, which I have cleverly wrenched from your control, I'll have to disagree.  I don't think you can "train" a great cook or a great server. You can, I believe, teach all of the necessary skills to make one or the other proficient, even good. But for greatness, they have to bring something to the table that isn't trainable. If I could tell you what that is, I'd be running seminars instead of running off at the mouth in a newsgroup, but I'll stick to my assertion.

Re:  "Great cooks are far rarer than great servers."

Yeah. Ok. I'll concede that one.

Re: "Given that a really fine establishment, that sort of place that would rate three, or even two Michelin stars in Paris, cannot survive without both great food and great service, would it be easier to attract great servers to a restaurant that was known for it's food, or great cooks to a restaurant that was known for it's service? It's possibly a chicken and egg question, but if you need both, which one is the more important to attract the other?"

I think you have the wrong chicken or, possibly, the wrong egg. I don't think you can attract cooks through service or servers through food.

Let me preface what follows by noting that in my market (where offering truly fine dining will bankrupt you and running a really crappy all you can eat buffet will make you a millionaire) servers go to the places that are perceived as "busy" and cooks go to the places that are perceived as paying a lot of money and offering a lot of overtime.

Nevertheless, attracting good kitchen help is always difficult. But I think that good cooks will go to a place, not because it has the reputation of offering good service, but because it has a reputation for creative food, or at least interesting food. My cooks, who I think are good or great, depending on the day of the week :) love to create. I let them.
The catch 22 is that you get a reputation for good food by having good cooks, thus obviating the need to attract good cooks. When you lack good cooks and need to attract them, life becomes difficult, doesn't it?

Labor problems. I digress. But you started it.
I'll still take the great server.
-EricABpos

Right about here, things begin to get a little nasty.  If you want to skip the nastiness and get to the happy ending, click here.  If a little controversy and a few swear words don't bother you, read on...

 Respond

Cooks vs. Servers Page 3

Cooks vs. Servers Page 4

Return to Cooks Main Page