Food for Thought

Joanne grabbed a tray and plasticware and headed for the food stations. Suddenly unsure, she halted, thinking, "Burger and fries? No, never. Hot entrée — let's see, lasagna, or turkey with dressing. Yuck. Looks like the salad bar again. Boring. But at least I won't be committing suicide by arterial plaque."

The menu in Joanne's company cafeteria wasn't actively bad — but the atmosphere was Spartan, there wasn't much choice, the food wasn't particularly healthy, and the rotation was terribly repetitive. She could never imagine, for example, going home to Larry and talking about lunch. It was even less likely that she would ever be torn between two choices she really liked. Lunch had become humdrum. Maybe that's why so many people went out for food.

When a company decides that its food service must pay its own way, or at least not lose too much money, it's choosing to encourage people to go elsewhere for lunch. What happens next depends on the availability of alternatives. If restaurants are close by, people are likely to choose them over a barely-good-enough internal food service. And when they make that choice — or even if they wish they could — the company can be a loser. Here's how.

When we compel the
company food service
to pay its own way,
we're telling people
to go out to lunchLet's suppose that the company employs large numbers of skilled knowledge workers. They work with their brains — scientists, researchers, engineers, programmers, artists, attorneys, accountants, executives, health care professionals, designers, and many others. Generally, people in these categories are paid well, and they're hard to replace.

Company policies that increase productivity, improve retention, or enhance morale can therefore be good investments. If the in-house food service is truly outstanding, and subsidized (where legally possible), here's what happens:

People eat in

Duh — of course they eat in. And when they do, the time they save by not going out — usually a half hour, at least — can become work time.

People consume less alcohol

Some people who lunch out order alcoholic drinks, and some return with fuzzy brains. For knowledge workers, it's much better if they stay in.

People network more

Eating in-house, people can spend more time with a greater variety of people from all over the facility. This builds networks and relationships, and smoothes cross-functional collaborations.

People are happier

An outstanding menu and atmosphere make people feel valued, which helps them build their self-esteem. This strengthens loyalty to the company, improving retention. See "Retention," Point Lookout for February 7, 2007, for more.

How much is this worth? A good rule of thumb is one-half hour per day per employee. That covers the cost of lost time, increased turnover, impairment, low self-esteem, and so on. If the average fully loaded payroll is $25 per hour ($80 is more realistic for knowledge workers), subsidizing the food service at a level of even $10 per employee per day is still a win.

For a company with many knowledge workers, trading food for thought is a fair exchange.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Coincidences Do Happen

When we notice similarities between events, or possible patterns of events, we often attribute meaning to them beyond what we can prove. Sometimes we guess right, and sometimes not. How can we improve our guesses?

The Retrospective Funding Problem

If your organization regularly conducts project retrospectives, you're among the very fortunate. Many organizations don't. But even among those that do, retrospectives are often underfunded, conducted by amateurs, or too short. Often, key people "couldn't make it." We can do better than this. What's stopping us?

The Artful Shirker

Most people who shirk work are fairly obvious about it, but some are so artful that the people around them don't realize what's happening. Here are a few of the more sophisticated shirking techniques.

Cooperations That Need to Be Collaborations

Modern products and services are so complex that many people cooperate and collaborate to produce them. When people are cooperating but the work actually requires collaborating, risks arise that can threaten the success of the effort.

Improvement Bias

When we set about improving how our organizations do things, we expose ourselves to the risk of finding opportunities for improvement that offer very little improvement, while we overlook others that could make a real difference. Cognitive biases play a role.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 23: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: I

In most organizations, most of the time, the plans we make run into little obstacles. When that happens, we find workarounds. We adapt. We flex. We innovate. But there are times when whatever fix we try, in whatever way we replan, we just can't make it work. We're working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 23.

And on April 30: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: II

When we finally execute plans, we encounter obstacles. So we find workarounds or adjust the plans. But there are times when nothing we try gets us back on track. When this happens for nearly every plan, we might be working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info