Very few relationships manage to avoid occasional differences of opinion. If both the parties
recognise that they are mutually dependent, as should be the case in a franchisee-franchisor
relationship, it is usually easy to amicably agree to disagree. If there is an imbalance, or
even if one of the parties mistakenly believes that that there is an imbalance, resentment can
become established.
In most franchises the operational work of providing the goods or services is carried out by
the franchisees. This can be arduous and repetitive. It often involves direct contact with
customers who can sometimes be demanding and unreasonable. If the franchisee is
required to employ staff it is inevitable that there will be occasional problems with sickness,
absenteeism and other issues.
The franchisor obviously did all these things when originally starting the business but unless
some company owned outlets are retained the role changes and moves away from the daily
duties now carried out by the franchisees. Much of the work involved in running the franchise
goes unnoticed and all too easily the franchisee’s perception can be that the franchisor is
raking in management fees and recruitment payments and doing very little to justify them. In
this situation a disgruntled and resentful franchisee is unlikely to amicably agree to disagree.
For the franchisor this is also a dangerous and unsustainable way to run the business.
All of this can apply to well managed and ethical franchises. Sadly, there are some that are
unethical as well as being badly managed. The franchisees who are shackled to this sort of
situation by a franchise agreement will quite justifiably feel that they are doing all the work
and the franchisor is adding little or no value to the relationship.
If you operate as either a franchisee or a franchisor; does any of this sound familiar?
Comments