The Delayed Lunch Order
People
- Tasha: Counter service worker
- Miguel: Kitchen worker
- Jordan: Shift manager and street mediator
Conflict: During the lunch rush, an eight-meal drive-through order was delayed. Tasha believes the kitchen ignored it. Miguel believes the counter entered the order unclearly and then blamed the kitchen.
The additional questions below are follow-up GQs. They help uncover facts, feelings, beliefs, and assumptions without moving into Remedy too early.
Step 1: Conditions
Jordan meets with Tasha and Miguel after the lunch rush.
Jordan: “My job is to guide the process, not decide who is right. Are you both willing to speak honestly, listen without interrupting, avoid personal attacks, and work toward a peaceful solution?”
Tasha: “Yes, I am willing.”
Miguel: “I am willing too.”
Jordan: “We will use Kanji Listening—ears, eyes, heart, mind, and full attention. Each person will finish their conflict position before we discuss remedies.”
Step 2: Conflict Positions
Tasha’s Position
GQ2: What happened?
Jordan: “Tasha, what happened?”
Tasha: “At about 12:15, I entered a drive-through order for eight meals. After ten minutes, most of the food was still missing. The customer became angry, and the drive-through line backed up.”
Jordan: “What did you enter into the register?”
Tasha: “I entered eight separate meals. Two had special requests—one without cheese and one without onions.”
Jordan: “What did you do after entering the order?”
Tasha: “I took the next customer. About five minutes later, I checked the pickup area. Only three meals were ready.”
Jordan: “Did you contact the kitchen?”
Tasha: “I called out, ‘I’m still waiting on the large drive-through order.’ I did not get an answer.”
Jordan: “Was it possible that the kitchen did not hear you?”
Tasha: “Yes. The restaurant was loud, and several people were talking.”
Jordan: “What happened next?”
Tasha: “The customer asked for the manager. I turned around and asked Miguel why the kitchen was ignoring my order.”
GQ3: How did you feel?
Jordan: “How did you feel when the order was delayed?”
Tasha: “I felt stressed and embarrassed.”
Jordan: “What concerned you most?”
Tasha: “I was worried the customer would complain about me. I was also worried that the drive-through time would be blamed on the counter team.”
Jordan: “Did those feelings affect how you spoke to Miguel?”
Tasha: “Yes. I sounded angry and accused him before asking what had happened.”
GQ4: What do you believe or think?
Jordan: “What did you believe was happening in the kitchen?”
Tasha: “I believed they saw the order but were working on easier orders first.”
Jordan: “What information supported that belief?”
Tasha: “I saw customers who ordered later receive food before my customer.”
Jordan: “What information did you not have?”
Tasha: “I did not know how the order appeared on the kitchen screen. I also did not know the kitchen was short a worker.”
Jordan: “Is it possible that the kitchen had a different understanding of the situation?”
Tasha: “Yes.”
Jordan: “What effect did the delay have on your work?”
Tasha: “I had to keep apologizing to the customer while taking more orders. The drive-through line grew, and I lost track of two drink orders.”
Jordan: “Miguel, briefly confirm what you heard.”
Miguel: “Tasha entered the order and later called for an update, but the kitchen may not have heard her. She felt exposed because she had to face the customer without knowing why the food was delayed.”
Tasha: “Yes, that is accurate.”
Position Summary Rephrase for Tasha
Jordan: “Tasha, before we continue, I want to make sure we understand your complete Position. Are you saying you entered an eight-meal drive-through order with two special requests? When most of the food was still missing after ten minutes, you called to the kitchen but did not receive a clear response. You had to manage an upset customer while the drive-through line grew. And then had to help figure everything out?
And you felt stressed, embarrassed, and worried that you or the counter team would be blamed. You believed the kitchen might have placed smaller orders ahead of yours because later customers received their food first. However, you did not know that the kitchen was short a worker or that the order appeared across two screens?
And you recognize that your frustration led you to accuse Miguel before asking what was happening in the kitchen?”
Did I correctly understand the facts, feelings, beliefs, concerns, and effects of the situation from your point of view?”
Tasha: “Yes.”
Jordan: “Is there anything important that I missed or stated incorrectly?”
Tasha: “No. That explains it.”
Miguel’s Position
GQ: What happened?
Jordan: “Miguel, what happened from your point of view?”
Miguel: “We were short one kitchen worker. The items appeared separately on our screen, mixed in with other orders. We did not realize all eight meals belonged to one drive-through customer.”
Jordan: “What was happening when the order appeared?”
Miguel: “I was cooking chicken while another worker handled sandwiches and fries. We had about twelve active orders on the screen.”
Jordan: “What did the kitchen screen show?”
Miguel: “It showed the items, but the large order continued onto a second screen. The two special requests also took longer to prepare.”
Jordan: “Did you hear Tasha ask about the order?”
Miguel: “I heard someone say something about drive-through, but I could not understand the full message over the timers and people talking.”
Jordan: “Did you ask for the message to be repeated?”
Miguel: “No. I kept working because several timers were going off.”
Tasha: “You should have figured it out. It was obvious.”
Miguel: “Maybe from the counter, but you people send us confusing orders all the time.”
FOUL
Jordan: “FOUL. We need to stop.”
Jordan pauses the discussion immediately.
Jordan: “Tasha, saying Miguel should have known placed blame on him. Miguel, saying ‘you people’ blamed the entire counter team. Both statements disrupted our peaceful Conditions.”
Restore the Conditions
Jordan: “We are returning to Step 1. Take a breath and focus on this single event. Are you both still willing to listen, avoid blame, and work toward a solution?”
Tasha: “Yes. I should have asked what Miguel saw instead of saying the problem was obvious.”
Miguel: “Yes. I should have described the order-entry problem without blaming everyone at the counter.”
Jordan: “The Conditions are restored. Miguel has not completed his POV, so we will return to his feelings and beliefs. We will not discuss remedies yet.”
GQ: How did you feel?
Jordan: “Miguel, how did you feel during the rush?”
Miguel: “I felt overwhelmed and frustrated.”
Jordan: “What was creating the most pressure?”
Miguel: “I was trying to prevent food from burning while checking a crowded order screen. I also knew our service times were getting worse.”
Jordan: “How did Tasha’s accusation affect you?”
Miguel: “I felt blamed for a problem I did not fully control. That made me defensive.”
Jordan: “Did that feeling affect how you responded?”
Miguel: “Yes. Instead of explaining the screen problem, I attacked the counter team.”
GQ: What do you believe or think?
Jordan: “What do you believe caused the delay?”
Miguel: “I think several things caused it: short staffing, the way the order appeared, the special requests, and poor communication.”
Jordan: “What part of the problem could you control?”
Miguel: “I could have asked Tasha to repeat her message. I also could have told the counter that the kitchen was backed up.”
Jordan: “What part could you not control?”
Miguel: “I could not control the staffing shortage or how the register divided the order across the kitchen screens.”
Jordan: “What assumption did you make about Tasha?”
Miguel: “I assumed she was blaming us without caring about the pressure in the kitchen.”
Jordan: “Do you know whether that assumption was true?”
Miguel: “No. I did not ask.”
Jordan: “Tasha, briefly confirm what you heard.”
Tasha: “Miguel was dealing with short staffing, special requests, and a crowded screen. He did not realize the items were one order. When I accused him, he became defensive.”
Miguel: “Yes, that is accurate.”
Jordan: “Both POVs have now been spoken, heard, and confirmed. We can move to Remedy.”
Position Summary Rephrase for Miguel
Jordan: “Miguel, before we move to Remedy, I want to make sure we understand your complete POV.
Are you saying the kitchen was short one worker and had about twelve active orders and Tasha’s eight-meal order appeared across two screens, mixed with other orders, so you did not realize all the items belonged to one customer? The special requests also required extra time. You heard someone mention the drive-through, but the kitchen was loud and you could not understand the full message. You continued working instead of asking for it to be repeated?
You felt overwhelmed, frustrated, and blamed for a delay you did not fully control. You believe the delay resulted from several conditions: short staffing, the way the order appeared, special requests, and unclear communication. You recognize that you could have asked Tasha to repeat her message or warned the counter about the delay. You also recognize that feeling blamed caused you to make a disrespectful statement about the counter team.”
Did I correctly understand the facts, feelings, beliefs, concerns, and effects of the situation from your point of view?”
Miguel: “Yes.”
Jordan: “Is there anything important that I missed or stated incorrectly?”
Miguel: “No. That is my Position”
Jordan: “Both complete POVs have now been spoken, heard, summarized, and confirmed with a ‘yes.’ We can now move to the Remedy step.”
Step 3: Remedy
GQ: What do you want now to resolve this conflict?
Jordan: “Tasha, what would help prevent this problem?”
Tasha: “I want the kitchen to warn the counter when a large order will take longer than expected.”
Jordan: “What information would help you communicate with the customer?”
Tasha: “An estimated wait time and a short reason for the delay.”
Jordan: “Miguel, what would help prevent the problem?”
Miguel: “I want the counter to directly notify us when an order contains six or more meals or several special requests.”
Jordan: “What would make that notification clear during a loud rush?”
Miguel: “The counter could use one standard phrase, and someone in the kitchen could confirm it.”
GQ: What remedy will you offer?
Jordan: “Tasha, what will you offer?”
Tasha: “I will say, ‘Large order check,’ followed by the order number. I will wait for someone in the kitchen to confirm it.”
Jordan: “Miguel, what will you offer?”
Miguel: “I will repeat the order number to confirm we see it. If the kitchen is delayed, I will give the counter an estimated wait time.”
Jordan: “What will each of you do if no one responds?”
Tasha: “I will repeat the call once and then contact the shift manager.”
Miguel: “If I cannot respond, I will ask another kitchen worker to acknowledge the call.”
Shared Agreement
Jordan records the agreement:
- Counter workers will use the phrase “Large order check” for orders containing six or more meals.
- The counter worker will state the order number.
- A kitchen worker will repeat the number to confirm receipt.
- The kitchen will provide an estimated wait time when delays occur.
- Workers will ask the shift manager for help if communication breaks down.
- Jordan will check the kitchen-screen setup and review staffing during the lunch rush.
- The group will review the process after one week.
Jordan: “Do you both understand and willingly accept this agreement?”
Tasha: “Yes. I feel heard, and I accept it.”
Miguel: “Yes. I feel heard, and I accept it.”
Red-Team Check
- Worker perspective: Because Jordan supervises both employees, they may feel pressure to agree. Jordan should clearly allow disagreement and avoid punishment for honest statements.
- Mediator perspective: Too many follow-up questions could feel like an investigation. Jordan should use only the questions needed to clarify facts, feelings, beliefs, and assumptions.
- Food-safety perspective: Faster service cannot come at the cost of cooking temperatures, allergy controls, sanitation, or other safety rules. PeaceDNA supports communication but does not replace required procedures.
Comment