Restaurant Hiring Communication: What Did You Hear?

Why Context Matters

Restaurant hiring communication isn't always about what someone says or writes. Sometimes it's about what the receiver understands based on their own experience.

A couple of weeks ago, a job seeker emailed me looking for insight into the restaurant management job market. I reviewed their resume and a position they'd applied for.

Their recent experience included a corporate supermarket operation with a counter-serve restaurant component. They had applied for a management position at a high-end, upscale-casual restaurant.

I wondered whether they recognized the differences between their experience and what the restaurant required.

Most employers seem to be seeking a unicorn, and candidates don't always understand why they aren't being considered.

A big part of my job is understanding what employers need, what candidates bring, and how each interprets the same information.

Recognizing Experience and Understanding It

A candidate reviewing a restaurant management job posting may recognize familiar responsibilities:

• Managing 10–15 employees

• P&L management

• Inventory

• Training and mentoring

• Scheduling

• Payroll

These are legitimate management responsibilities. But managing a corporate supermarket operation with a restaurant component isn't the same as managing a high-end, James Beard Award-winning restaurant.

Dining room service, guest expectations, hospitality standards, beverage programs, and the rhythm of restaurant operations introduce responsibilities that aren't always apparent in a job title. The range of restaurant manager responsibilities is also covered by 7shifts.

Recognizing familiar responsibilities isn't the same as understanding the operation behind them.

What Happened When We Exchanged Emails

I explained that many of my restaurant management searches require recent, direct responsibility for overall restaurant operations, including staffing, financial performance, and daily management.

I also acknowledged the candidate's relevant experience in beverage operations, employee training, and front-of-house service.

They explained that they were concentrating on front-of-house management positions, particularly service management, where they believed their experience would be most applicable.

They were frustrated that restaurants appeared unwilling to consider candidates without direct restaurant management experience, even when other qualifications aligned.

Then they mentioned another possibility.

They were considering applying for a server position to learn how a restaurant operated and potentially work toward management.

Their experience hadn't changed, but they were considering a different way to gain direct restaurant experience.

What an Employer Hears

Now consider the employer reviewing that same resume.

What do they conclude when they see a corporate supermarket background?

They may recognize transferable management experience while also seeing that the candidate lacks the direct restaurant management background they're seeking.

One reason restaurants hire me is to help sort through applicants whose experience doesn't align with their concept.

I've seen bank managers and clothing store managers apply for restaurant management positions. They may understand staffing, budgets, and daily operations without understanding restaurant service or the responsibilities of running a restaurant.

Even within hospitality, managing one concept doesn't automatically prepare someone to manage another.

At the same time, pedigree and job titles don't tell the whole story. Understanding what someone actually managed may reveal relevant experience that isn't immediately apparent.

The candidate may see similarities without recognizing the differences. The employer may see differences without recognizing the similarities.

Neither perspective automatically tells the whole story.

Restaurant Hiring Communication Works Both Ways

This connects to several topics I've explored recently.

In Restaurant Hiring Expectations: Do Both Sides Agree?, I examined how employers and candidates can approach the same opportunity with different expectations.

In What Hospitality Employee Dedication Actually Looks Like, I explored why describing yourself as dedicated doesn't necessarily communicate the behaviors an employer expects.

And in The Line Cook Unicorn: Hire Someone Who Exists, I questioned whether employer requirements always reflect the candidates available.

Different situations, but a common issue.

Employers understand their operations and what they believe a position requires. Candidates understand their experience and what they believe they can contribute.

Neither automatically understands how the other interprets that information.

That doesn't mean employers should disregard their requirements or candidates should pursue positions they're unqualified to perform.

It means recognizing that information we consider obvious may not communicate what we think it does.

Investigate Before Making a Decision

When experience appears relevant in some ways and different in others, a little more context helps.

Candidates need to look beyond job titles and understand the restaurant's concept, service expectations, and operational responsibilities.

Employers need to look beyond pedigree and understand what candidates actually did.

Those questions may reveal transferable experience worth considering. Sometimes they confirm that the experience isn't the right fit.

Either way, the decision comes from a clearer understanding of what's being offered and what's required.

In my exchange with that job seeker, we were looking at the same resume and job requirements from different perspectives. Our conversation helped clarify what the candidate brought to the position and what the restaurant required.

Are we speaking the same language? Do we hear each other correctly?