BERNARD LOISEAU 1

By Aurélien ACQUIER
Translation Pierre MOREL

PART 2
Organizational change
It became necessary to replace Bernard Loiseau with a full time manager. Dominique Loiseau decided
to put in place a new management system and commissioned a head hunter to recruit a financial and
HR director. So, in December 2003, Isabelle Proust, an HEC graduate, was hired. She had been a
former assistant to the UGC (a movie theater chain) vice president for finance, and earlier an auditor
with Mazars. She rapidly became general manager of the business, in charge of reorganizing the
Group and of implementing strict management rules.
Dominique Loiseau decided to discharge a few of her husband’s duties. She handled some of his
former functions, particularly external communication and the welcoming of guests. All responsible
positions were formalized and precise objectives were set for their holders.
“I wanted to make all my managers responsible for their work, so that they would propose
solutions instead of just taking orders. In the past, our management style was very centralized.
The boss took all the decisions and would leave implementation to his subordinates. My
challenge was to transform mere executives into real managers”. (Dominique Loiseau)
The proposed organizational change advocated internal promotion whenever possible. In the kitchen,
Patrick Bertron, who had been Bernard Loiseau’s second and then sous-chef since 1984, mastered
the art of haute cuisine in Bernard Loiseau’s spirit. He was promoted to the position of chef. Arnaud
Faye who had been recruited as second shortly before Bernard Loiseau died became Patrick Bertron’s
sous-chef. In the kitchen, where turnover is traditionally high, the challenge was to keep expert staff in
place and to continue to attract personnel to Saulieu.
In the same time, Dominique Loiseau wished to reinforce the board with directors who could provide
expert management advice. She invited two outside directors. She also offered seats on the board to
Patrick Bertron (the former sous-chef) and to Hubert Couilloud, so that they would be involved in the
management process and connect decisions with the down to earth aspects of the business. Hubert
Couilloud had been very close and loyal to Bernard Loiseau. He was very influential in the composition
of menus.

Cost cutting at all levels

All the firm’s expenses were carefully audited (personnel, purchases, fixed costs) and all contracts
renegotiated. Processes were implemented to validate and place orders. Executives were made
aware of the necessity to cut costs. It was decided to control inventories, to manage the staff more
strictly and, particularly, to adopt new hiring methods. The drop in revenues made it necessary to
manage the business more professionally, if it was to be turned around.
“We have now become a real business, as concerns the implementation and follow up of social
legislation. The new emphasis on management methods has many advantages and will allow
us to survive. The big draw back, though, is that everything is controlled, which means more
work for all employees: we have to record all invoices, we now request price estimates from all
our suppliers. We forward the estimates to our supervisor who consults Isabelle Proust or not”.
(a maître d’hôtel)

1
Source : F.Leroy and T.Paris (2008), « Les recettes du renouveau - La réorganisation du Groupe Bernard
Loiseau au décès de son chef ».
The general manager hired a management controller to follow up on the new procedures. She was a
young management school graduate. She started work in April 2005. She was put in charge of human
resources and accounting.
Kitchen procedures were also followed up more strictly, particularly as concerned inventory
management and the cost of the different recipes. The procedures were now new, but they were not
implemented in the past. Margin rates were set, so that prices could be determined on the basis of the
costs of supplies. All recipes were carefully itemized in a computer based file as to the precise
quantities of ingredients needed for their preparation. All inventories were computerized and a
theoretical follow up was put in place.
“I have put in place a procedure and now I make sure that it is being implemented. It was
difficult for the staff to accept. This is not a job for cooks, but now they comply”. (the
management controller)
In the kitchen, some think that these new constraints distract the cooks from their real mission.
“They have put many tools in place, in particular computers, all things which make the life of a
creator hell. A traditional kitchen and a big business are not the same thing. In the past, we
used our common sense to manage our activities. Now it is different. We cannot let this come
into the kitchen because this would mean we would no longer have time to keep an eye on how
the boys work”. (the chef de cuisine)

New work methods

All business processes were actually reviewed. Bernard Loiseau’ style of management was dubbed by
his staff “communicative”, “informal”, “based on horse sense”, “craftsman like”, “familial and
professional”. What came after him was a more structured and formal organization. For the
management, the major difficulty was to put in place a stricter management style in order to make sure
the business would survive, while not compromising on quality.
“With Bernard Loiseau, we were not structured as we are now. He was very quick. Many things
were made on the spur of the moment, and everyone would follow. He was rather impulsive in
his ways. He had brilliant ideas. It was not always possible to implement them. Today,
everything is more structured. We have to study our costs and expenses.  »

Computers were introduced and communication was now gradually made via e-mail, in a formalized
way. Lots of employees simply could not get used to this. Weekly meetings between supervisors were
organized. The hierarchal line of command had to be respected, which was not always the case
earlier. These changes were not supposed to affect in the least the staff’s work style and their way of
welcoming guests. There was no intention whatsoever of questioning the spirit and philosophy which
Bernard Loiseau had imprinted on the house: respect for guests, for work, for others.
“In the past, the atmosphere was familial but professional. Now it is stricter and colder. Yet, this
is not felt by the guests.” (the gouvernant)
“There is less happiness in the work. It is more business like, now. The members of the staff are
here to do their jobs. With Mr Loiseau, they worked enthusiastically. They would not count the
hours. They felt a lot a respect for a person who devoted his whole life to his business.” (a guest
in the dining room)

The kitchen: between continuity and renewal

In the kitchen, at first, the staff prepared the same dishes as Bernard Loiseau did. It was essential to
respect Bernard Loiseau’s culinary principles in order to convince the staff, the guests and the haute
cuisine reviewers that nothing had changed. Yet, Patrick Bertron was convinced that guests would
rapidly expect novelty and would not want the restaurant to become a sort of museum. Gradually, with
Dominique Loiseau’s help, the chef entered a phase of creation and ultimately presented two types of
dishes: the Bernard Loiseau classics and the Patrick Bertron creations. The only requirement was not
to break with the culinary style set forth by Bernard Loiseau.
More so than Bernard Loiseau, Patrick Bertron favored creative team work with his seconds. He gave
them broad work themes, depending on his preferences, for example, a “warm liver” or a “pigeon”.
Then, they would discuss, the seconds would submit their ideas and everything would be recorded in
a log shared by the “creative cell”. Regularly, they would meet to taste their production.

From resistance to open opposition

However, tension grew. The necessary changes provoked resistance and gave rise to more or less
open conflicts. Some questioned the whole reorganization of the establishment as it imposed
procedures which were feared to be detrimental to quality and tradition. Others thought that cost
control and the introduction of reporting methods would hurt quality and the convivial atmosphere
which had earlier characterized the establishment. Others still rejected the excessively management
oriented style which had been adopted.
“The general context had changed too. If you are a temporary employee or a permanent staff
alike, you are just a number. You can be fired on the spot. The time is over when, in the 80s,
people cared for you. In the past, you could start at the bottom and gradually make your way
up.” (a waiter)
Resistance to change and to the introduction of stricter management rules turned into personal
opposition against those leading the change. The senior members of the staff, particularly those who
felt they had made the three star restaurant with Bernard Loiseau, questioned the legitimacy of the
new bosses. Dominique Loiseau and Isabelle Proust were outsiders in the world of haute cuisine and,
to boot, women in a traditionally male trade. It was felt they were debasing Bernard Loiseau’s style
and that the changes they advocated contradicted the tradition which had made the establishment so
successful.
“We are the ones who invented the three star restaurant: Hubert, Bernard, Jean-François (the
custodian), Patrick Bertron and the chefs de rang.” (a butler)
“The people who manage us have never been in the trade” (a butler)

« Nouvelle cuisine » is challenged

Not only were management and the new methods of operation criticized, opposition was also aimed at
Patrick Bertron’s creations and the changes which had made their way into the menu. Tensions flared
up particularly between the kitchen staff and the dining room staff. The dining room staff felt that many
creations of the kitchen were in direct confrontation with the spirit of Bernard Loiseau. They were
bitterly criticized. Rivalries also emerged between members of the dining room staff (most of whom
had accompanied Bernard Loiseau along their whole career) and the kitchen (most of whose staff had
never even known Bernard Loiseau). Moreover, it was said that these members of the kitchen staff
would spend only one or two years with the restaurant, during their apprenticeship. Concretely it
meant that a few chefs de rang and butlers would guide the guests’ choices toward Bernard Loiseau’s
classical preparations and not Patrick Bertron’s creations. It was then easy for them to claim that
Patrick Bertron’s creations did not meet the guests’ expectations, and so that they – the butlers and
chefs de rang were perfectly justified in criticizing them.
On top of that, the seconds were reproached with not knowing Bernard Loiseau’s spirit and with not
having participated in the growing success of the establishment.
“It is very hard to have the waiters acknowledge innovations”. Relation between the kitchen and
the dining room are tense. We had invented a new dish, lobster ravioli served in lobster broth
with stuffed cabbage. We wanted to serve the broth in a teapot. Everybody was up in arms. We
were told that we had never worked with Bernard Loiseau, and just did not know how to work.”
(a kitchen second)
Tensions focused on the person of Hubert Couilloud, who was in charge of the dining room and had
been one of Bernard Loiseau’s first companions in the restaurant. Many thought that, as he had been
his right arm, he embodied Bernard Loiseau’s spirit as much as the chef did. The staff and the guests
liked and respected him. Rivalry between him and the chef increased, particularly as concerned new
dishes.
 “He is the keeper of the house spirit. He is important. He cares for people. He is a bit like
Bernard Loiseau, he is generous» (a member of the administrative staff)
“Hubert Couilloud, he is the image that all guests have of the establishment because he stands
at the reception desk and manages the dining room.” (the establishment’s manager)
“After Bernard Loiseau’s death, Hubert Couilloud (the person responsible for the dining room)
said: ‘Nothing gets out of the kitchen that I have not tasted’. I obeyed him once, and then I
disregarded his order. What I accepted from Mr Loiseau, who was my master, I could not
accept from someone else. In Bernard Loiseau’s time, Hubert Couilloud participated in our
tasting sessions. I always came very frustrated out of them. I would ask Mr Loiseau to taste
things and he would say they were perfect. Then Hubert Couilloud would taste them and say he
did not like them. So, Bernard Loiseau would ask me to start all over again. After the death, I
said no (…). I wanted to assume the risks.” (the chef de cuisine)
After a dormant phase, tensions broke into an open conflict: decisions had to be made. Should
organizational reforms and the new cuisine style be continued? The risk, then, was that a number of
the staff would probably leave the establishment. Firing Hubert Couilloud would prove very risky as he
was so experienced and enjoyed such good relations with the guests. He was also familiar with
Bernard Loiseau’s style.

Finally,

1. Do you maintain your initial assumptions about the first actions of Dominique Loiseau?
2. Do you maintain your initial assumptions about the future of la Cote d’Or ?
3. According to all the elements that you have now in your possession quote two positive and two
negative elements of the new management style and the new organization of La Côte d’Or
4. From the Change Management perspective what would you have made the same choices and
acts as D.Loiseau did ?