In this regard, the 10 rule sounds like this:
If someone dares to make decisions in the area of your responsibility, this must be fought. Of course, no violence in the kitchen! Only diplomacy and peaceful resolution of issues. Sometimes there is a great risk to create a conflict, get nervous and generally spoil all the work. In such a situation, I recommend the following plan:
1. The first time is to gently delineate the boundaries – to hint to the adviser that you should not worry so much. I mean, you're a boss, you're a grown man , you know your stuff, and you don't need moral support.
2. If a person was incomprehensible or considered your tact, described in the first paragraph, a manifestation of weakness, then perhaps we should tighten the reaction and act. Find a defect in its area of responsibility, for example, and pay close attention to it. As I said in the previous rule, the boss has a large area of competence, up to the restaurant hall, so he can use various levers. No one likes uninvited interference in the work, so you will demonstrate it and soon stop the invasion of your territory.
3. In that case, if you can not show rigidity, because the investor generates unnecessary advice and ideas, try to explain logically why he is not right and for what reason it is not worth doing so. If the investor continues to insist - agree to implement all the proposals, but only if he takes full responsibility.
With whom you may have difficulties and how best to get out of the situation?
• Non-kitchen staff – administrators, accountants, managers – eager to share their valuable opinions and try to teach you how to live and work? A hint that they have something to do on their territory will help to avoid conflict, and a more serious approach will save you nerves and once and for all put an end.
• Young chefs with youthful maximalism, who have not yet mastered some of the subtleties, believe that their opinion is the only true one? You, as their mentor, have to work with them in such a way that they go for advice themselves, and not try to tell you something. Again, a reference to the previous rule and the nuances of your authority.
• An investor who insists on unprofitable positions that will bring nothing but losses? In this case, you need to act thinner, because the person who pays you money, you can not refuse. But to justify your point of view from the height of experience, you can always offer alternative options. If the investor is adamant - agree, attracting him personally to the maximum in the implementation of ideas, placing most of the responsibility on him.