Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising

Organisational Structure, Knowledge Sharing, Standardisation and Centralisation/Decentralisation as

Characterization of the Choice of Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising

Master Thesis

Dual Masters Award in Advanced International Business Management

Newcastle University Business School

and

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

Maren Sabrina Overmann

Student Number: S2438569 / B2037957

Supervisors: Henk Ritsema (Groningen)

Dr. Markus Blut (Newcastle)

Date of Submission: 10 December 2013

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Abstract

ii

ABSTRACT

Today, multi-unit franchising is no longer an exception but very common. It appears to even be the

dominant of franchising in some industries (Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt, 2005). However, despite its

prevalence, in most franchising research scholars do not address the possibility of multi-unit

franchising and assume single-unit franchising as the basis (Dant et al., 2011). To respond to this

recent statement this master thesis aims to enhance the knowledge about multi-unit franchising and its

management in practice from a franchisee perspective. It represents a first step to reveal the specific

management issues inherent in the multi-unit franchise business.

To achieve this aim the organisational configuration of the multi-unit franchise business is analyzed by

considering the four factors organisational structure, knowledge sharing across units, level of

standardisation and level of centralisation/decentralisation. Ten multi-unit franchisees from five

different franchise systems within the system catering industry owning between three and 17 units on

the German market were interviewed.

Looking at the organisational structure of a multi-unit franchise business, it was disclosed that most

multi-unit franchisees make use of unit managers and from a certain size of the business on also

employ operations managers. The motivations for a chosen organisational structure are diverse,

reaching from a rule set by the franchisor, advice from other multi-unit franchisees to the need for a

contact person within the unit. Moreover, it was revealed that all multi-unit franchisees support

knowledge sharing between their units to make use of the increased knowledge of their employees and

the reduced need for involvement by the multi-unit franchisee and the operations manager.

Furthermore, the level of franchisor-independent standardisation is low and does not automatically

increase with a growing number of owned units. Regarding the research conducted in the area of

centralisation/decentralisation, it was found that finance is centrally handled by all multi-unit

franchisees while marketing is mainly centralised. Human resources are handled by a mixture of

centralisation and decentralisation.

To recommend direction for future research based on this study, several propositions are formulated

that should be picked up to further enhance the knowledge in this specific research area.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Table of Contents

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. ii

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Definition of Business Format Franchising ............................................................................. 1

1.2. Introduction to Multi-Unit Franchising ................................................................................... 1

1.3. Empirical Evidence of Multi-Unit Franchising ....................................................................... 2

1.4. Research Deficit ...................................................................................................................... 2

2. Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Multi-Unit Franchising ............................................................................................................ 6

2.2. Management within Multi-Unit Businesses ............................................................................ 9

2.3. Organisational Configuration ................................................................................................ 11

2.3.1. Organisational Structure ................................................................................................ 11

2.3.2. Knowledge Sharing across Units ................................................................................... 15

2.3.3. Standardisation .............................................................................................................. 16

2.3.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation ............................................................................... 16

2.4. Summary and Introduction of the Sub-Questions ................................................................. 18

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 19

3.1. Measurement ......................................................................................................................... 19

3.2. Empirical Setting ................................................................................................................... 20

3.3. Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.4. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 22

4. Results........................................................................................................................................... 24

4.1. Organisational Structure ........................................................................................................ 24

4.2. Knowledge Sharing across Units........................................................................................... 33

4.3. Standardisation ...................................................................................................................... 34

4.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation ....................................................................................... 36

5. Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 40

5.1. Organisational Structure ........................................................................................................ 40

5.2. Knowledge Sharing Across Units ......................................................................................... 44

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Table of Contents

iv

5.3. Standardisation ...................................................................................................................... 45

5.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation ....................................................................................... 45

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 47

6.1. Summary of the Research ...................................................................................................... 47

6.2. Academic and Managerial Implications ................................................................................ 48

6.3. Limitations............................................................................................................................. 49

6.4. Further Research .................................................................................................................... 49

List of References ................................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix 1: Interview Schedule ........................................................................................................ 55

Appendix 2: Information Sheet .......................................................................................................... 58

Appendix 3: Consent Form ................................................................................................................ 60

Appendix 4: Sample Interview Transcript ........................................................................................ 61

Appendix 5: Interview Information ................................................................................................... 73

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising List of Figures

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Four Aspects of the Organisational Configuration ........................................................ 11

Figure 2: Possible Different Parts of the Organisational Structure ...................................................... 12

Figure 3: Motives and Reasons for a Chosen Organisational Structure ............................................... 14

Figure 4: Knowledge Sharing across Units .......................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Increasing Level of Standardisation ..................................................................................... 16

Figure 6: Decision about Centralisation or Decentralisation ............................................................... 17

Figure 7: Organisational Structure of D3 ............................................................................................. 24

Figure 8: Organisational Structure of D8 ............................................................................................. 24

Figure 9: Organisational Structure of D15 ........................................................................................... 25

Figure 10: Organisational Structure of V3 ........................................................................................... 25

Figure 11: Organisational Structure of J3 ............................................................................................ 25

Figure 12: Organisational Structure of K4 ........................................................................................... 26

Figure 13: Organisational Structure of K17 ......................................................................................... 26

Figure 14: Organisational Structure of S3 ............................................................................................ 27

Figure 15: Organisational Structure of S5 ............................................................................................ 27

Figure 16: Organisational Structure of S11 .......................................................................................... 27

Figure 17: Organisational Structure and its Components ..................................................................... 40

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising List of Tables

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Job Aspects of the Multi-Unit Manager ................................................................................. 10

Table 2: Management Key Success Factors of the Multi-Unit Manager ............................................. 10

Table 3: Annual Net Turnover and Number of Units of the Participating Franchise Systems ............ 20

Table 4: Franchise System, Number of Units and Status of the Participating Franchisees .................. 22

Table 5: Overview of the Organisational Structure of the Multi-Unit Franchise Business .................. 28

Table 6: Overview of the Motives and Reasons for the Chosen Organisational Structure .................. 30

Table 7: Overview of the Ways of Sharing Knowledge ....................................................................... 34

Table 8: Areas of Standardisation ........................................................................................................ 35

Table 9: Centralisation and Decentralisation of Tasks and Responsibilities ........................................ 36

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising List of Abbreviations

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

HR Human resources

KFC Kentucky Fried Chicken

USA United States of America

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Introduction

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The aim of this chapter is to present the background and purpose of this study. It starts by defining

business format franchising and multi-unit franchising as this is the context in which this master thesis

takes place. Chapter 1.3 illustrates the practical relevance of the topic before the research deficit is

addressed in Chapter 1.4.

1.1. Definition of Business Format Franchising

Business format franchising1 has been one of the fastest growing business methods in the last 50 years.

Franchise systems like McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts and Holiday Inn are prominent examples while it

can be found in a lot of sectors today: From fast food, pet care, photography, cleaning, fitness to

recruiting (Ellis and Pekar, 1979; DiPietro et al., 2007; British Franchise Association, 2013; Franchise

Direct, 2013).

In general, business format franchising can be defined as a relationship secured by a contract in which

the franchisor sells to the franchisee the right to build up an independent business by using the

franchisors’ trade name, product specifications and operating systems. Additionally, the franchisor has

to provide ongoing support and training to the franchisee in the phase of implementation and during

the running operation. For these rendered services the franchisee has to follow the regulations and

standards set by the franchisor and has to pay initial and ongoing fees (Kaufmann and Eroglu, 1999;

Combs and Ketchen, 2003; Webber, 2013).

1.2. Introduction to Multi-Unit Franchising

Today most franchisors offer their franchisees the possibility to acquire more than one franchise unit.

If a franchisee owns two or more units of a distinctive franchise chain he2 conducts multi-unit

franchising (Gómez et al., 2010).

Multi-unit franchising supports the franchisor in reducing the risk of moral hazard and adverse

selection. Moral hazard refers to opportunistic behaviour of the franchisee after the contract has been

signed and adverse selection considers the possibility to make a wrong choice with a new franchisee.

When an additional unit is granted to an existing franchisee which the franchisor knows and

appreciates due to his performance so far, this risk can be reduced (Kalnins and Lafontaine, 2004;

Gómez et al., 2010).

From a franchisee perspective, Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt (2002) argue that their engagement in

multi-unit franchising can be related to the exploitation of economies of scale through spreading costs

1 When ‘franchising’ is used in this master thesis, it refers to ‘business format franchising’. Before ‘business format franchising’ came up ‘traditional franchising’ was mainly used which describes a system in which a franchisee works as an authorized dealer who pays a fee to the franchisor on the basis of the gross margins. In comparison to this traditional form of franchising the today prevalent ‘business format franchising’ uses a market-oriented view and the franchisee no longer only works as a distributor of goods but buys a whole business idea from the franchisor. For more information please compare Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt (2000) and Dant et al. (2011). 2 Within this master thesis the franchisee will be addressed as ‘he’. However, the term will equally refer to ‘he’ and ‘she’, meaning male and female franchisees.


2

in marketing, management and procurement across units. The second reason is the opportunity of the

multi- unit franchisee to influence the decision-making of the franchisor more than a single-unit

franchisee.

1.3. Empirical Evidence of Multi-Unit Franchising

Today, multi-unit franchising is no exception but prevalent in most franchise systems (Kaufmann and

Dant, 1996; Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt, 2005).

Already in 1996, Kaufmann postulated that single-unit franchising is becoming an exemption in

comparison to multi-unit franchising. In the same year, Kaufmann and Dant (1996) found that 88% of

the franchise systems participating in their United States of America (USA) study were making use of

multi-unit franchising.

In 2012, FRANdata conducted research in the food and restaurant industry in the USA and found that

36% of the franchisees own multiple units. Additionally, they state that multi-unit franchising became

increasingly popular since the beginning of the recession due to the reluctance of banks to lend money.

This meant that is was difficult to acquire new franchisees and the emphasis for growth was on the

existing franchisees (Loten, 2012).

In the United Kingdom, more than 20% of the franchisees were multi-unit owners in 2010. This

development is mainly due to the hotel and catering sector where this form of franchising is used

above average (bfa and NatWest, 2011).

No research could be found dealing with the question of how prevalent multi-unit franchising is in

Germany. However, according to Jan Schmelzle3 multi-unit franchising is a well-used concept in

Germany and applied by franchise systems like McDonald’s, Subway, Vapiano, Kentucky Fried

Chicken (KFC), Back Factory or clever fit.

1.4. Research Deficit

The introduction above shows that multi-unit franchising is very common. It appears to even be the

dominant of franchising in some industries (Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt, 2005).

In most franchising research, researchers do not address the possibility of multi-unit franchising and

assume single-unit franchising as the basis (Dant et al., 2011). This is not reflecting reality as a part of

the growth in franchise systems is not based on single-unit franchisees but on multi-unit franchisees.

Nevertheless, even though this possibility of multiple ownership has not been addressed in the

research, some research designed for single-unit franchising could aswell be valid for multi-unit

franchising.

3 Jan Schmelzle is employee at the Deutscher Franchise Verband e.V. (German Franchise Association) in the area of legal coordination and organisation. He was contacted several times during the data gathering phase of this master thesis and supported the researcher with additional information about the German franchise market.


3

However, considering the management challenges multi-unit managers face, those are partly different

from the challenges for single-unit franchisees. Multi-unit franchisees need to deal with different

single businesses at a time in different locations. This means a multi-unit franchisee needs to supervise

units which can differ in their size, local circumstances as well as amount and characteristics of the

employees. Additionally, on a general level he needs to coordinate the activities of these

heterogeneous units, supervise a higher amount of employees and develop an organisational structure

that accounts for all units and that he can supervise effectively. When developing an organisational

structure he needs to consider the question which tasks are centralised or decentralised and if there is a

need for franchisor-independent standardisation.

As a result, the research findings and recommendations drawn from single-unit franchising are not

entirely applicable to multi-unit franchisees and need to be researched under the prerequisite of multi-

unit ownership. Additionally, the specific management issues inherent in multi-unit franchising need

to be researched and evaluated.

Another research reason can be drawn from the application of the agency perspective. A main reason

to use franchising from a franchisor perspective arises from the application of the principal-agent

theory. This theory describes the relationship in which a principal delegates work to an agent. As the

principal and the agent may have different goals and risk preferences, the agent may take actions that

are not in the interest of the principal. To prevent this, the principal needs to design a contract that is

outcome based and needs to monitor the agent. In a company context, the principal is a company

owner and the agent is a manager. The owner bears the company risk while the manager has only

limited responsibility as he is a salaried worker (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Eisenhardt, 1989a). To

minimize the arising risk and costs, some companies decide to franchise their business. This concept

creates independent units in which the managers are owners of a business themselves. Consequently,

the compensation of the franchisee is determined by the performance of his franchise unit and he has a

higher incentive to perform successfully than company managers (Dada et al., 2010).

Considering the principal-agent theory and applying it to multi-unit franchising, it could be argued that

multi-unit franchising raises the principal-agent problem again that was minimized by single-unit

franchising. The reasoning is that unit managers appointed by a multi-unit franchisee are expected to

have – like company managers – a lower incentive for a high unit performance. Similarly, if multi-unit

franchisees still manage the several units on their own, the degree of supervision per unit decreases

and this could negatively influence the performance of the employees. Due to this dilemma owning

multiple units could be detrimental to the performance as the multi-unit franchisees cannot be involved

in the day-to-day business as single-unit franchisees (Kalnins and Lafontaine, 2004). However, despite

this theory multi-unit franchising is applied today, so the multi-unit franchisees seem to have found a

way to overcome or at least minimize the above presented dilemma. Therefore, it needs to be

researched how multi-unit franchisees manage their multi-unit franchise business successfully as these

franchisees most-likely found a way to successfully deal with the principal-agent problem. This


4

supports franchisors in advising their multi-unit franchisees and (aspiring) multi-unit franchisees in

possessing knowledge about a successful organisational configuration from a multi-unit franchisee

that could function as a model for their own business.

To sum up, even though multi-unit franchising is often applied today, there is hardly any knowledge

available how the multi-unit franchisees manage their several units. Therefore, this master thesis aims

to enhance the knowledge about multi-unit franchising and its management in practice from a

franchisee perspective. This results in the overall research question:

How is the organisational configuration of the multi-unit franchise business created by the

multi-unit franchisee?

It represents a first step to reveal the specific management challenges inherent in the multi-unit

franchise business and how the principal-agent problem is handled. Thereby an emphasis will be laid

on the organisational configuration of the business. However, even though it constitutes a first

contribution to the knowledge about multi-unit management, it can only represent a starting point in

the area of multi-unit franchise management. To pave the way for future research, propositions will be

introduced.

The organisational configuration examined is characterized by the four aspects organisational

structure, knowledge sharing across units, franchisor-independent standardisation and the level of

centralisation or decentralisation. These topics are chosen due to different considerations. The basis for

the considerations was the research conducted on management within multi-unit businesses presented

in Chapter 2.2. Following this, single-unit and multi-unit franchise businesses were compared about

how they differ in their work and challenges. In this way those four aspects arising as the major fields

of decision-making for a multi-unit franchisee compared to a single-unit franchisee were identified.

These aspects were addressed in the interviews with the multi-unit franchisees and were confirmed as

decisive by the multi-unit franchisees.

Moreover, the motives and reasons are addressed for three out of the four topics. It is important to

understand the motives and reasons that lead to the adoption of a certain organisational configuration

to simplify the choice of an organisational configuration for a future multi-unit franchisee and to give

the franchisor the opportunity to adequately advice their multi-unit franchisees.

One aspect of the organisational configuration is the organisational structure the multi-unit franchisee

applies in his multi-unit business. Different forms of organisational structure are possible, e.g. the

multi-unit franchisee still manages all units himself, employs unit managers and/or operations

managers. Additionally, knowledge will be raised about the reasons and motives for this kind of

organisational structure. This results in the first sub-question addressed in this master thesis:

How is the organisational structure of the multi-unit franchise business and what are the

motives and reasons for this chosen organisational structure?


5

A multi-unit business allows knowledge-sharing across units. To explore this knowledge sharing the

second sub-question asks:

Is knowledge sharing between the different franchise units existent and if yes, how does it take

place, in which areas of the business, and what are the motives and reasons for it?

Additionally, owning multiple units gives the franchisee the opportunity and perhaps also creates the

necessity to standardise different tasks independent from the standardisation imposed by the

franchisor. To raise information about this aspect the third sub-question is:

Which tasks are standardised and does the level of standardisation increase with the growth of

the multi-unit business?

The management tasks and responsibilities faced with when owning multiple businesses makes it

necessary to consider their possible centralisation or decentralisation. To gain a deeper understanding

of the topic the last two sub-questions ask:

Which tasks and responsibilities are centralised and what are the motives and reasons for this

centralisation?

Which tasks and responsibilities are decentralised and what are the motives and reasons for

this decentralisation?

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Literature Review

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review starts by giving an overview about the conducted research in the area of multi-

unit franchising. It aims to present different areas in which research has been carried out. Thereby it

becomes apparent that the topic covered by this master thesis has so far not been in the focus of

research.

Following this, literature on multi-unit management is presented. As there is only limited literature

available on multi-unit management in general and no literature about multi-unit management in

franchising4, the section is followed by presenting literature from four different areas identified as the

major areas of decision-making in multi-unit franchising and confirmed as crucial by the multi-unit

franchisees participating in the research. At the end, a summary chapter introduces the sub-questions.

2.1. Multi-Unit Franchising

In general, a distinction can be made between sequential multi-unit franchising and master franchising.

In the case of sequential multi-unit franchising, the franchisee opens additional units over time which

is normally administered by a new franchise contract (Kaufmann and Dant, 1996; Grünhagen and

Mittelstaedt, 2005). Master franchising can be divided again into area development franchising and

sub-franchising. Area development franchisees are committed to find a certain number of franchisees

in a region and time agreed on with the franchisor. In the case of sub-franchising, franchisees are given

the right by the franchisor to grant units to other franchisees in a predetermined region (Grünhagen

and Mittelstaedt, 2005; Gómez et al., 2010). This master thesis focuses on sequential multi-unit

franchising as in this form the franchisee buys and operates a new franchise unit and is mainly

responsible for it.

Considering the research conducted in the area of multi-unit franchising, it can be said that it started in

the 1980s. But even though some research has been carried out, the topic is still underresearched

(Hussain and Windsperger, 2010). Research has been done in the following areas5:

(a) Motivation and Reasons to Use Multi-Unit Franchising from a Franchisor Perspective

Kaufmann and Dant (1996) examine the motivation for a franchisor to use multi-unit franchising.

They point out that a higher number of multi-unit franchisees leads to faster system growth.

Additionally, they reveal that a higher number of franchise units per franchisee are negatively related

to the commitment the franchisor has towards maintaining the franchise relationship.

Garg et al. (2005) reveal that franchisors that are aiming for a high growth rate prefer multi-unit

franchising over single-unit franchising. More detailed, sequential franchising is less common than

area development franchising. When aiming for uniformity, franchisors prefer area development

4 According to the author’s best knowledge. 5 The multi-unit franchising literature outlined here represents - to the author’s best knowledge - the most valuable literature conducted in this field and does not claim to present the whole literature undertaken in this research area.


7

franchising. Conversely, when focussing on local responsiveness, sequential multi-unit franchising is

more popular.

In 2007, Weaven and Frazer (2007a) conduct research to find reasons for the adoption of multi-unit

franchising. The study discloses that there is no ownership redirection strategy, meaning that

franchisors do not intend to buy back profitable units in future. Their proposition concerning agency

cost minimization is supported, showing that multi-unit ownership causes cost savings related to the

management of the franchisor-franchisee relationship. Additionally, they find a positive relationship

between multi-unit franchising and system uniformity, the value of the franchising brand and a close

geographic proximity between existing and additionally granted units. The propositions regarding a

positive relationship between multi-unit franchising and system-wide adaptation of changes initiated

by the franchisor, local market innovation and future franchisee opportunism as perceived by the

franchisor are not supported. As a last point the proposition that multi-unit ownership is used as a

reward strategy by the franchisor to influence the franchisee performance is mainly supported.

In the same year, Weaven and Frazer (2007b) also examine characteristics of a franchise system and

their influence on the willingness of the franchisor to use multi-unit franchising. The researchers

exhibit a positive relationship between multi-unit franchising and the age of the franchise system as

well as the managerial corporatisation. Moreover, there is a positive relationship between multi-unit

franchising and the plurality of distribution within the system, meaning the study supports that in

franchise systems maintaining company-owned units the prevalence of multi-unit ownership is more

likely. A negative relationship exists between multi-unit franchising and intra-firm conflicts as well as

organisational complexity within the system.

In 2009, Weaven (2009) research again the question why franchisors adopt multi-unit franchising.

Surprisingly, the reasons found in 2007 do in part not hold in this research. He reveals – consistent

with his expectations – that the franchise system maturity and the usage of multi-unit franchising had a

positive relationship. Against his expectations he finds that the application of multi-unit franchising

and the degree of franchise system corporatisation, franchise systems using plural forms of

distribution, geographical dispersion of units, importance of reward strategies and system growth do

not have a positive relationship. For the variable dealing with the level of intra-firm conflicts he shows

a positive relationship.

(b) Motivation and Reasons to Use Multi-Unit Franchising from a Franchisee Perspective

Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt (2005) investigate if franchisees differ in their motivation to become a

multi-unit franchisee. They identify that sequential multi-unit franchisees see themselves more as

entrepreneurs than area developers, but both kinds of franchisees do not differ in their investment

motivation.


8

Weaven and Frazer (2006) compare single-unit and multi-unit franchisees regarding their motivation

to enter franchising. For single-unit franchisees the brand, initial training, freedom on an operational

level and potential family employment are important. For multi-unit franchisees the vision and the

business concept of the franchise system, the continuing support and training, involvement in

decision-making, expansion prospects and the governance structure are decisive.

(c) Motivation to Grant Additional Units to Franchisees

Kalnins and Lafontaine (2004) investigate the basis on which additional units are granted to

franchisees and reveal that franchisees are approved for additional franchise units if those new units

are geographically close to their existing units and if they are contiguous as well as demographically

alike.

(d) Propensity to Use Multi-Unit Franchising

A complementary relationship between the duration of the franchise contract and the propensity to use

multi-unit franchising is found by Vázquez (2008). Therefore, the incentives multi-unit franchising

offers a franchisee are only of importance when the contract concluded is long enough. Moreover, the

researcher demonstrates that the likelihood to use multi-unit franchising is lower if the costs of

monitoring outlet mangers are high. Conversely, if there is a higher risk of free-riding by the

franchisee, the tendency towards multi-unit ownership is higher.

Gómez et al. (2010) study which factors lead to a high usage of multi-unit franchising by connecting it

to agency problems in the relationship between franchisor and franchisee. In detail, they find that there

is a positive relationship between the use of multi-unit franchising and a geographical concentration of

units within the franchising network, network size and franchising within non-repetitive industries.

(e) Influence of Multi-Unit Franchising on the Level of Dependence and Autonomy

Dant and Gundlach (1999) reveal that multi-unit ownership has an influence on the level of

dependence and autonomy. They detect that a higher proportion of multi-unit franchisees leads to a

higher perceived dependence but a lower desire for autonomy vis-à-vis the franchisor from the

franchisee perspective.

(f) Benefits of Multi-Unit Franchising for Franchisees

Kalnins and Mayer (2004) discover that multi-unit owners profit from the local market knowledge and

experience they have. This finding applies to multi-unit owners in general, whether they are franchised

or not.

The section above shows that the multi-unit franchising literature is mainly dealing with the

motivation to start multi-unit franchising and has been primarily conducted from a franchisor

perspective. The following section introduces research in multi-unit management.


9

2.2. Management within Multi-Unit Businesses

As the area of multi-unit franchising is still widely underresearched and no literature about the

management of multi-unit franchise businesses is available, general literature about multi-unit

management is presented to give an overview.

Looking at multi-unit management literature, Jones (1999) finds by studying the hospitality industry

that there are differences between small business management and multi-unit management resulting in

different management challenges. The management challenges resulting from multi-unit operations

include:

• No possibility to supervise managers on an operational level directly;

• Control over day-to-day operations is not possible;

• Subordinate employees deal with customers on a frequent basis;

• The setting of the unit is a key success factor;

• Employees from different labour markets with different behaviour and attitudes;

• Shifting of information flow through different units;

• No one organisational culture as business is split into several units.

He declares that there is relatively little known about multi-unit management and that there is a need

for further investigation. Likewise, Umbreit (1989) states that the roles of single-unit and multi-unit

managers differ and tries to research the most important job aspects of multi-unit managers. In his

article about multi-unit restaurant management he postulates that the job descriptions of multi-unit

managers do not specify which tasks the managers perform, how much time they spend performing

their tasks or how they pursue their goals. To study this, he asked executives and multi-unit managers

about their different job aspects and how important they weight those and discovers five job aspects of

importance for multi-unit managers. These are illustrated in Table 1 (p. 10). The handling of restaurant

operations is the most important and time-consuming task. However, when looking at the tasks

performed it becomes prevalent that it comprises more the effective functioning of operative tasks than

actually performing them. Human resources (HR) and financial management consume the second and

third highest amount of time, followed by facility and safety and marketing and promotion.


10

Table 1: Job Aspects of the Multi-Unit Manager

Importance

to multi-unit

manager

% of time

spent on

job aspect

Job aspect Description

No. 1 32.7% Restaurant operations

Enforces consistent company standards, systems, and procedures; evaluates product quality; implements new systems; oversees the delivery of positive customer service, supervises new-product introductions; monitors unit-management activities.

No. 2 23.3% HR management Supervises effective orientation, training and management of employees; teaches unit managers how to manage people; provides quality feedback; provides promotable managers.

No. 3 22.3% Financial management

Maintains profitability by monitoring performance, preparing budgets, developing forecasts, authorizing expenditures, controlling costs, and reviewing results with unit managers.

No. 4 10.6% Facilities and safety

Supervises the overall condition of unit facilities to ensure operational acceptability and competitive readiness and establishes safety-management programs.

No. 5 9.6% Marketing and promotions management

Implements marketing and sales-promotion plans, prepares units for promotional programs, encourages collection of information on customers and the competitive market.

Source: Umbreit (1989)

DiPietro et al. (2007) follow the view of Umbreit (1989) and postulate that there is a lack of research

on multi-unit management in the restaurant industry. They highlight its importance by saying that the

conducted research shows that the characteristics between single-unit managers and multi-unit

managers differ. Therewith they follow the line of research started by Umbreit (1989) and define

attributes that are in relation to the successful performance of the managers of multiple units. Thereby

the factors do not need to be executed necessarily by the multi-unit manager himself but its

consideration needs to be assured. Those factors can be summarized in eight dimensions which are, in

essence, congruent to the tasks presented by Umbreit (1989).

Table 2: Management Key Success Factors of the Multi-Unit Manager

Dimension Attributes

Single-unit operations Cost control; personnel training; maintenance of facilities.

Standard operating procedures Regular information collection and successful marketing strategy to reach maximum productivity.

Multi-unit strategic planning Set targets; implement plans.

Interpersonal and social responsibilities Consider the surrounding environment by developing managers and regarding food safety.

Travel and visiting units Show presence in units.

Human relations Enhance quality; teamwork support; create and live values.

Effective leadership Raise turnover; manage resources.

Unit level finances Decide about product prices and number of employees within a unit.

Source: DiPietro et al. (2007)

To summarize, the above presented literature on multi-unit management gives a first indication on

core topics to be considered by a multi-unit owner. However, it focuses on the tasks and


11

responsibilities of the multi-unit manager. It does not address the configurational considerations like

organisational structure, standardisation, knowledge sharing across units and centralisation/

decentralisation. These considerations are essential when building up a multi-unit business.

2.3. Organisational Configuration

As there is no research on multi-unit configuration that could be taken as a reference to study the

configuration of multiple units by franchisees, different aspects are considered to get an insight into

these issues. In detail, those aspects are organisational structure, franchisor-independent

standardisation, knowledge sharing across units and centralisation/decentralisation. These topics are

chosen due to different considerations and illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Four Aspects of the Organisational Configuration

The basis for the considerations was the research conducted on management within multi-unit

businesses presented in Chapter 2.2. Following this, single-unit and multi-unit franchise businesses

were compared about how they differ in their work and challenges. Thereby those four aspects arising

as the major fields of decision-making for a multi-unit franchisee compared to a single-unit franchisee

were identified. These aspects were addressed in the interviews with the multi-unit franchisees and

confirmed as decisive. Generally, these topics thematised are meant as those in the control of the

multi-unit franchisee, meaning regardless of the possible rules of the franchisor.

2.3.1. Organisational Structure

The first aspect important for the organisational configuration of the multi-unit franchise business is

the organisational structure. The organisational structure of a business is a critical decision as it should

support the business in reaching its goals and pursuing its strategy. If a structure is chosen that is not

ideal, it can harm the efficiency and effectiveness of the business in the short term and threaten its

viability in the long term (Burton et al., 2006).

Looking at a franchising business, its organisational structure is comparable to a divisional

configuration like presented by Burton et al. (2006) as is therefore compared to it. Like within a


12

divisional configuration every franchise unit constitutes an own business which has a certain degree of

independence from each other and from the headquarter, which is in this case represented by the

franchisor. The multi-unit franchisee oversees the units and communicates the policies. From theory

this kind of organisational structure works most successfully when coordination and involvement from

the top are limited ‘and each division is left to run its own business where it has resources and can

coordinate its activities to focus on the market for its products, its customers or in its region’ (Burton

et al., 2006, p. 64). However, within a franchise system there is a certain degree of standardisation

imposed by the franchisor (Kaufmann and Eroglu, 1999) which limits the ability of the unit to adapt its

products and services to the customers and region by definition.

Within a multi-unit franchise business, there is one franchisee responsible for several units.

Consequently, he has to develop an organisational structure which best fits the needs of this special

type of business and ensures its effective functioning. Different theoretical considerations can be made

concerning the organisational structure. Kaufmann and Dant (1996) as well as Kalnins and Lafontaine

(2004) automatically assume that multi-unit franchisees employ unit managers. However, no research

if they actually do could be found. This research aims to shed light on the question if unit managers

are employed by multi-unit franchisees. As another possible form of management, the multi-unit

franchisee could still manage the multiple units on his own by splitting his time and tasks between

them. Nevertheless, some multi-unit franchisees own a high number of units which makes it difficult

to supervise them even when there are unit managers applied. Therefore, there might be several

hierarchies of control arising out of this increased number of units. Likewise Jones (1999) seems to

assume that there are different layers of management within a multi-unit business but he does not

discuss them. Following the idea of different management layers, a multi-unit franchisee could assign

a unit manager who reports to an appointed operations manager. This operations manager could be

responsible for several units and build a hierarchical level between the multi-unit franchisee and the

unit manager. Besides those forms describing the organisational structure there are probably other

additional forms of unit management. These will be revealed during the research. The possible

different parts of the organisational structure are depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Possible Different Parts of the Organisational Structure

The above mentioned organisational structure could have developed due to different motives and

reasons. Five possible motives and reasons will be explained hereafter and are depicted in Figure 3

(p. 14).


13

Motives and reasons are researched for three out of the four sub-topics of organisational configuration.

However, possible motives and reasons are only explained in this manner in the literature review for

the sub-topic ‘organisational structure’. This can be explained by the fact that so far there has been no

research at all for this topic. Following this, no motives and reasons could be found in the literature

which makes it necessary to examine possibilities. For the topics ‘knowledge sharing’ and

‘centralisation/decentralisation’ literature from other research areas could be consulted to give at least

a first insight into possible motives and reasons.

(a) Rules of the Franchisor

As a first reason the rules of the franchisor could lead to a certain organisational structure. The

relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee and their rights and obligations is fixed in the

franchise contract (Boulay, 2010). As a part of the contract, the franchisor could prescribe the multi-

unit franchisee how to handle certain tasks within multi-unit management, referring for example to the

organisational structure and employment of unit managers. Thus, in this case, the multi-unit franchisee

has to follow the rules of the franchisor and cannot assess by himself what might be best for his

business.

(b) Costs

The second reflection rests on cost considerations. The employment of people is always bound to costs

(Moderegger, 1996). Therewith, the decision of the multi-unit franchisee to hire a unit manager instead

of himself doing this job is also a decision towards a higher percentage of fixed costs.

However, from a certain number of units on, the multi-unit franchisee should strategically not just be

involved in day-to-day business activities, but also work on the overall management issues with the

goal to enhance the overall performance and profit of his business. The gain of this could be higher

than the costs bound by unit managers.

(c) Leadership Style

Besides rules of the franchisor and cost considerations, the leadership style practiced by the multi-unit

franchisee could be decisive for the composition of an organisational structure. Thereby, leadership

can be understood as ‘an interactive process that provides needed guidance and direction’ (Goodnight,

2004, p. 820). Leaders differ in their way they provide guidance and direction which results in

different leadership styles: Autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire leadership.

The autocratic leader expects unconditional conformity and compliance towards him and his

decisions. Decisions are taken solely by him and the compliance is ensured by the enactment of rules,

policies and goals. This kind of leader does not value the abilities of his employees and therefore has a

high affinity towards close supervision as this ensures obedient behaviour. As a negative result, there

is a low tendency towards innovation and organisational development (Goodnight, 2004).


14

The democratic leader highly values his employees and designs an open, respectful relationship which

sees equality and trust as its basis. In contrast to the autocratic leader this leader supports open

communication between employees. The leader acknowledges the abilities and capabilities of his

employees and supports their development. Through this he creates a working atmosphere that is

shaped by motivation and teamwork. The democratic leader expects high performance and supports

this by rewards (Goodnight, 2004).

Leader with a laissez-faire attitude do not guide their employees. Based on the assumption that the

employees know best what they have to do, he leaves them alone to take free choices. Information

exchange works on an employee-employee basis. The leader only takes action if he needs to deal with

a crisis or react to a certain event. This leadership style leads to inefficiency and chaos (Goodnight,

2004).

The leadership style could influence the organisational structure of the multi-unit franchise business

with an autocratic leader controlling his employees more than a democratic leader. This could

influence the amount of employees hired to control others. Additionally, the autocratic and democratic

leader will probably have a more distinctive reporting structure than a laissez-faire leader.

(d) Advice from Other Multi-Unit Franchisees

Additionally to the motives and reasons stated above, relationships between franchisees can have an

influence on the behaviour and attitude of franchisees (Dickey, 2003; Lawrence and Kaufmann, 2011).

Multi-unit franchisees might tell other (aspiring) multi-unit franchisees about their organisational

structure and service as an example of good practice. This might influence the organisational structure

applied by a multi-unit franchisee.

(e) Finding an Appropriate Manager

As a last point, it might be decisive if the multi-unit franchisee finds a manger that he views as

appropriate for running his unit. Only if he considers a manager as competent and trustworthy he can

leave management tasks to him.

Figure 3: Motives and Reasons for a Chosen Organisational Structure


15

2.3.2. Knowledge Sharing across Units

Besides the organisational structure knowledge sharing across units is examined in the context of

multi-unit franchising as shown in Figure 4. Nowadays, knowledge is a strategic resource and critical

part of the organisational success. Thus, the creation, sharing as well as the leveraging of knowledge is

fostered within organisations (Drucker, 1993; Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2001; Ipe, 2003).

In general, knowledge sharing between individuals can be defined as ‘the process by which knowledge

held by an individual is converted into a form that can be understood, absorbed, and used by other

individuals.’ (Ipe, 2003, p. 341) and that leads to a total growth of knowledge (Quinn et al., 1996). In

the context of multi-unit ownership it might give the business the opportunity to share knowledge

across the borders of the single unit. Once the knowledge is shared between units, the sender gives

access to his knowledge and through feedback or modifications by the receiving unit the overall

knowledge grows.

While Sorenson and Sørensen (2001) state that learning benefits can be utilised in the context of multi-

unit companies, they see this advantage critical for single-unit franchisees. To use the knowledge from

other units, a common knowledge base is needed. But franchisees are independent entrepreneurs that

make use of local adaptations which can minimize the value knowledge has for other units (Sorenson

and Sørensen, 2001). However, when a franchisee owns several units he builds a common base for all,

comparable to a multi-unit business. Consequently, the possibility of knowledge sharing could create a

competitive advantage for the multi-unit franchisee that is not possible for a single-unit franchisee.

Therefore, it is aimed to evaluate if multi-unit franchising creates this chance that cannot be exploited

in that intensity within single-unit franchising.

The opportunities to share knowledge can be either formal or informal. A formal way of sharing

knowledge is the composition of structured work teams or the provision of training programs.

Informal occasions are social networks and personal relationships and make up the greater part in this

process. However, the process of sharing knowledge and the willingness of the employees to do so

always depends on the company culture and if it positively influences it (Ipe, 2003).

Figure 4: Knowledge Sharing across Units


16

2.3.3. Standardisation

Owning several units might give the multi-unit franchisee the opportunity and perhaps also the

necessity to standardise several tasks and procedures. Generally, standardisation describes the

establishment of procedures through routines (Martinez and Jarillo, 1989). It describes the ‘extent to

which activities are subject to standard procedures and rules’ (Child, 1984, p. 164).

According to Aldrich (2008) the size of an organisation as well as its complexity has a positive impact

on the likelihood of standardisation. It leads to higher efficiency and facilitates bureaucratic

operations. As a prerequisite, the situation in which the standardised rules are applied needs to be

relatively steady, recurring and few enough to allow the matching of the situation with the fitting rules

(Thompson et al., 2003).

While multi-unit franchisees are already subject to a high level of standardisation imposed by the

franchisor, they might additionally develop best practices to effectively manage their mini-chains and

enhance their overall performance. Thereby, the amount of standardised rules and procedures might be

more for franchisees owning a higher amount of units compared to multi-unit franchisees owning a

lower amount of units. As standardisation issues might have an influence on the successful functioning

of the multi-unit franchise business, its appearance will be examined in this master thesis and is

illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Increasing Level of Standardisation

2.3.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation

As a fourth part of organisational configuration, the level of centralisation and decentralisation is

reviewed and illustrated in Figure 6 (p. 17). Thereby centralised is defined as being executed by the

multi-unit franchisee while decentralisation refers to the allocation of decision rights to other levels,

meaning for example unit managers or operations managers. Generally, the decision about the

centralisation or decentralisation of tasks and responsibilities is interdependent with the choice of

organisational structure (Gibson et al., 2012). Therefore, this topic is addressed in this master thesis.


17

There is a tendency towards centralisation within an organisation if the decision-making is more likely

taken over by the top while in the case of decentralisation units or employees are allowed to take

decisions which would be taken on a higher level in comparable organisations (Brooke, 1984). There

are different levels of centralisation or decentralisation observable in organisations. As a small owner-

managed company grows, the manger needs to evaluate how to effectively manage his business and

perform the different tasks (Carnall, 2007).

As Brooke (1984), Child (1984) and Carnall (2007) describe, the level of centralisation or

decentralisation depends on the circumstances, taking into consideration the strategic importance of

the decision that has to be taken and the organisation and its context in relation to its capabilities and

contingencies.

Centralisation allows the manager to have a broader overview about the company and to ensure the

pursuance of policies. It allows fast decision-making and helps to rationalize as different tasks are only

performed once (Brooke, 1984; Child, 1984; Carnall, 2007). To interpret this in the sense of multi-unit

franchising, centralisation might allow the formation of departments that work for all units. Examples

might be the central handling of HR, finance or marketing. Thereby duplications can be avoided and

efficiency increases. Additionally, if all important decisions are still taken by the multi-unit franchisee,

he can ensure that these decisions are taken in his interest.

Decentralisation alternatively allows the manager to delegate certain tasks and responsibilities to

employees which gives him the possibility to focus on management tasks like long-term planning.

Additionally, the responsibilities that will be assigned to the employees increase their motivation and

therewith positively influence their performance and job satisfaction (Brooke, 1984; Child, 1984;

Carnall, 2007). It also allows greater flexibility and can be seen in a faster response to change and also

could take into consideration local conditions in a greater amount (Child, 1984). Thus, decentralisation

has advantages for the multi-unit franchisee as the organisation grows. It gives him the possibility to

focus on important planning and management tasks. Supportive and operational6 tasks can be

performed by employees.

Figure 6: Decision about Centralisation or Decentralisation

The level of centralisation and decentralisation raises the principal-agent problem again. In their

article, Nohria and Ghoshal (1994) apply principal-agent theory to headquarter-subsidiary

6 In this master thesis the term ‘operational tasks’ refers to the day-to-day business accomplished within the unit.


18

relationships. Likewise, this theory can be applied to the relationship between the multi-unit manager

and his employees. The multi-unit manager cannot be responsible for and take all decisions in all his

units, so he has to assign decision rights to employees. However, he cannot assign all decision rights to

his employees, as he has to secure that decisions will be taken in his interest. The interests he pursues

as a multi-unit manager may not always be the as the interests of his employees.

2.4. Summary and Introduction of the Sub-Questions

After a critical assessment of the literature on multi-unit franchising and multi-business management

in general, it can be said that it does not address the configurational considerations that a multi-unit

manager has to make. As a result, a gap in the literature concerning the organisational configuration of

the multi-unit franchise business could be identified which this master thesis aims to address. This

organisational configuration is essential to regard when building up a multi-unit franchise business and

leads to the following sub-questions helping to answer the overall research question:

(a) Organisational Structure

How is the organisational structure of the multi-unit franchise business and what are the

motives and reasons for this chosen organisational structure?

(b) Knowledge Sharing across Units

Is knowledge sharing between the different franchise units existent and if yes, how does it take

place, in which areas of the business, and what are the motives and reasons for it?

(c) Standardisation

Which tasks are standardised and does the level of standardisation increase with the growth of

the multi-unit business?

(d) Centralisation/Decentralisation

Which tasks and responsibilities are centralised and what are the motives and reasons for this

centralisation?

Which tasks and responsibilities are decentralised and what are the motives and reasons for

this decentralisation?

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Methodology

19

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter introduces the methodology applied. It is divided into the sections ‘Measurement’,

‘Empirical Setting’, ‘Data Collection’ and ‘Data Analysis’.

3.1. Measurement

To reveal the organisational configuration of multi-unit franchise businesses and the corresponding

motives, ten franchisees7 were interviewed. The goal to build theory and to shed light on an interesting

phenomenon about which little or even nothing is known so far justifies this qualitative research

method using case studies. Thereby a sample size between four to ten cases is appropriate and

facilitates the first insight into a topic under investigation as well as the comparison between the

different cases (Eisenhardt, 1989b; Thomas, 2004).

The interviews were semi-structured. In this exploratory study it is an effective way of gathering

information as it allows for the examination of answers by seeking for explanations or building the

forthcoming questions on given answers (Saunders et al., 2009).

Therewith, the chosen research method ensures validity as it answers adequately the research question

(internal validity). Nevertheless, as it is only a first step in the research regarding the organisational

configuration within multi-unit franchise units and only ten franchisees are considered, the degree of

generalisability is restricted (external validity). Therefore, the results need to be confirmed by further

studies.

The franchisee is the only person that can be asked about the configuration of his business and his

corresponding motives and was consequently chosen as the focus of the research. Thereby it might be

possible that the interviewee is not completely honest about his motives as he may try to hide certain

reasons or state reasons of which he thinks they are most likely the case, expected by the researcher or

known from others. However, the researcher tried to prevent this by informing the franchisee that it is

an explorative research where there are no right or wrong answers.

An interview schedule (Appendix 1) was prepared to guide the researcher through the interview and

ensure that all the aspired topics are covered. They were derived from the main research question and

its sub-questions. However the interview schedule only served as a guideline and the interview

developed based on the given answers.

To ensure the alignment with the ethical principles in the conduct of research outlined by the

Newcastle University, the interviewees received an information sheet (Appendix 2) and were asked to

sign a consent form (Appendix 3) prior to the interview. The interviewee and the researcher went

through both documents together to solve possible questions.

7 In the chapters 3 to 5 the term ‘franchisee’ instead of ‘multi-unit franchisee’ will be used to describe the interviewed multi-unit franchisees. This is due to the fact that from chapter 3 to chapter 5 the researcher only talks about multi-unit franchisees which makes a distinction between multi-unit franchisees and single-unit franchisees unnecessary.


20

3.2. Empirical Setting

According to bfa and NatWest (2011) multi-unit franchising can be mainly found in the hotel and

catering sector. Jan Schmelzle confirmed that in Germany multi-unit franchising is mainly prevalent in

the food industry. As there is a comparably high amount of possible interviewees and multi-unit

franchising is well-known in this industry, this industry was chosen as the focus of research. More

detailed, the system catering industry was chosen. A system caterer can be defined as somebody who

sells beverages and/or dishes that can be consumed on site and works with a standardised and

multiplied concept that is controlled centrally (DEHOGA, 2013).

The top 60 system caterers in Germany were able to raise their annual net turnover in the last years

which increased to 9,008 m Euro in 2012. The industry is dominated by McDonald’s with an annual

net turnover of 3,247 m Euro in Germany (BdS, 2012).

3.3. Data Collection

Ten franchisees from five different franchise systems were interviewed in German. The franchisees

were contacted in different ways:

• Possible interviewees identified through internet research were contacted directly via e-mail or

via the German business platform XING;

• A contacted franchisee acted as contact person for other franchisees within his franchise

system;

• Jan Schmelzle from the German Franchise Association established the contact between the

researcher and either the franchise system or the franchisee directly;

• The franchise system was contacted and acted as a connector to franchisees.

The franchise systems participating in this research are among the top 13 of the most successful

system caterers in Germany in 2012 as measured by their annual net turnover (BdS, 2012c). Their

annual net turnover as well as the number of owned units in Germany are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Annual Net Turnover and Number of Units of the Participating Franchise Systems

Annual net turnover in

Germany (in m Euro)

Number of units in

Germany

Franchise system 2012 2011 2010 2012 2011 2010 McDonald’s 3,247 3,195 3,017 1440 1415 1386 Subway 185 175 203 600 612 703 Vapiano 144.8 128.8 103.5 53 45 41 KFC 137 122 103 92 76 72 Joey’s Pizza Service 120 109.5 94.2 203 192 173

Source: BdS (2012c)

As this is an exploratory study with the aim to reveal the possible organisational configurations within

multi-unit franchising, franchisees from five different franchise systems owning a different number of

franchise units were selected. This takes into consideration two main reasons that might account for


21

differences, the size of the business and the franchise system. However, to enable comparisons

between the franchisees, one industry, the system catering industry, was chosen. As a result, the sold

products are relatively comparable and it ensures that an organisational configuration was not only

chosen because of the differences in the product offering. The researched franchise systems can be

summarized as follows8:

The first unit of McDonald’s was opened in 1940 by Richard und Maurice McDonald in San

Bernardino, California and the first German McDonald’s unit was opened in 1971 in Munich. Today,

McDonald’s is the most successful system catering company in Germany as measured by its annual

net turnover. On average 2.7 m guests were served by 64,265 employees in 1,440 German restaurants

in 2012. While 20% of their units are still operated by McDonald’s Deutschland Inc., 80% were

franchised to 243 franchisees. Therewith a franchisee owns on average 4.85 units (McDonald's, 2013).

The first Subway restaurant was opened in 1965 in Bridgeport, Connecticut, by Fred deLuca.

Compared to McDonald’s that mainly sells burgers and fries, Subway builds its concept on fresh

sandwiches. It entered the German market in 1999 in Berlin. Today 6,000 employees serve guests in

600 restaurants. All German Subway restaurants are owned by 350 franchisees (Subway, 2013) which

means that statistically nearly half of the franchisees own more than one restaurant.

Vapiano is a German franchise concept that started with its first restaurant in Hamburg in 2002. Today

there are 130 Vapianos in 28 countries. In Germany there are 53 restaurants employing about 3,500

people. The concept is described by Vapiano as ‘Fresh Casual Dining’. The guest can order pasta,

pizza, antipasti or salads directly from a chef who cooks the dish fresh in front of him (BdS, 2012d;

Vapiano, n.d.). The restaurants are partly owned by joint ventures and partly owned by franchisees

(Franchise PORTAL, 2011).

KFC was founded by Harland Sanders in 1930 in Corbin, Kentucky. In 1952 he sold his first franchise

for a restaurant serving fresh handmade chicken meals. Today there are about 18,000 restaurants in

120 countries (BdS, 2012b; KFC, 2013b; Colonel Sanders, n.d.). There are 92 restaurants in Germany

employing about 3,600 people. 70% of the restaurants are franchised (BdS, 2012b; KFC, 2013a).

Joey’s Pizza Service was founded in Germany and opened its first shop in 1988 in Hamburg. Today

Joey’s is the most successful pizza delivery company in Germany. In 2012, there were 203 franchise

businesses nationwide owned by 130 franchisees employing around 5,000 employees (BdS, 2012a;

Joey's, 2012).

All of the interviewed franchisees own franchise units in Germany. This ensures a common legislative

basis and increases the homogeneity of cultural values that would differ more in cross-country studies

and could possibly influence the research results.

8 It was the aim of the researcher to present the same information for the five franchise systems. Unfortunately not all desired information was available for each franchise system.


22

On the consent form the franchisees were able to choose if they want their name to be used in the

master thesis. As three franchisees only provided their consent for their data to be used anonymised,

this will be done for all to ensure consistency. As a result, the franchisees will be named with a

synonym consisting of a letter marking the franchise chain and a number showing the amount of

owned units. Both aspects might be of importance when presenting the interview results.

Table 4 summarises the participating ten franchisees, their franchise system, number of units and

status9:

Table 4: Franchise System, Number of Units and Status of the Participating Franchisees

Franchisee Franchise system No. of units Status

D3 McDonald‘s 3 Deputy general manager and son of a franchisee

D8 McDonald‘s 8 Franchisee D15 McDonald‘s 15 Franchisee V3 Vapiano 3 Franchisee J3 Joey’s Pizza 3 Franchisee K4 KFC 4 Franchisee

K17 KFC, Pizza Hut & Coffee Corner

17 Franchisee

S3 Subway 3 Franchisee S5 Subway 5 Franchisee S11 Subway 11 Franchisee

Source: Interview statements

This sample gives the opportunity to explore different organisational configurations in different

franchise systems and for franchisees owning a different number of units. But it also opens up the

possibility to compare organisational configurations of franchisees owning a different number of units

within one franchise chain and to compare organisational configurations of franchisees owning the

same number of units across different franchise systems.

As Table 4 shows, there is one participant that is no franchisee directly. However, the participant grew

up with a father owning multiple McDonald’s units and joined the business later on. As there was the

initial plan to continue the business in second generation, he had wide-reaching powers and was

involved in every area of the business. For these reasons he is an appropriate participant for the

research and confirmed that he is able to answer the questions adequately.

3.4. Data Analysis

To systemize the interview information, thematic analysis was used. This widely used method helps

with ‘identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.

79).

According to Braun and Clarke (2006) the analysis process consists of six steps. The first step aims to

get familiar with the data. This includes the full transcription of the audio-taped semi-structured

9 Additional information about the conducted interviews can be found in Appendix 5 ‘Interview Information’


23

interviews10 and gives the researcher the possibility to review and reread the data in detail several

times. The second step comprises the coding. ‘Codes identify a feature of the data (…) that appears

interesting to the analyst’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 88). As a result, the qualitative data was

manually systematized into meaningful groups, taking into consideration the whole data set. The aim

of the next step is to study the codes and assess what potential overarching themes can be developed

due to these codes. In this research, codes were developed taking into consideration each sub-question.

After this, the themes were reviewed to check whether they shape a logical pattern and represent the

codes. Following this, the themes decided on are checked back to see if they are of relevance in

relation to the whole dataset. Then the chosen themes were further specified. This step helps to ensure

that there is a clear understanding of what a theme comprises, how the relation to other themes is and

if there are potential overlaps. Following this the results were written down, thereby using examples

that support the findings, relating back to the research question and sub-questions as well as to the

literature reviewed (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

10 One sample transcript is attached as Appendix 4. The other transcripts are provided by the author on request.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Results

24

4. RESULTS

In the following sections the interview results are addressed, divided into the four sub-topics of the

organisational configuration.

4.1. Organisational Structure

To address the first part of the first sub-question regarding the organisational structure of the multi-

unit business, the organisational charts of the interviewed franchisees are depicted. Following this,

comparisons between the organisational structures will be made.

D3 makes use of an operations manager, unit managers for each unit and a deputy general manager.

Figure 7: Organisational Structure of D3

Source: Interview statements of D3

D8 works with unit managers, an operations manager and three supportive employees.



He distinguishes between two types of restaurants, ‘traditionals’ and ‘satellites’. The difference lies in

the size of the restaurant with ‘satellites’ being very small units and geographically close to a

‘traditional’. Therefore, those ‘satellites’ do not have an own management but are connected to a

‘traditional’.


25

D15 works with unit managers for each unit, operations managers, a deputy general manager and four

supportive employees.



V3 works with unit managers for each of his units.

Figure 10: Organisational Structure of V3

Source: Interview statements of V3

J3 uses nearly the same structure as V3, he is only supported by an additional clerk.

Figure 11: Organisational Structure of J3

Source: Interview statements of J3


26

K4 employs three unit managers for four units. One of his units is shared with another multi-unit

franchisee.

Figure 12: Organisational Structure of K4

Source: Interview statements of K4

K17 owns units from three franchise systems, KFC, Pizza Hut and Coffee Corner with unit managers

for each unit, three operations managers and three supportive employees.

Figure 13: Organisational Structure of K17

Source: Interview statements of K17


27

S3 owns three franchise units while two are run by a unit manager and one is run by himself.

Figure 14: Organisational Structure of S3

Source: Interview Statements of S3

S5 employs unit managers and a supportive clerk.


Source: Interview statements of S5

Comparable to D8, he owns one ‘satellite’.

S11 runs his units together with a business partner.


Source: Interview statements of S11

They work with operations managers that operate three or five units each without employing unit

managers.

Table 5 summarises the results of the interviews concerning the organisational structure.


28

Table 5: Overview of the Organisational Structure of the Multi-Unit Franchise Business

Franchi-

see

Average

employees

per unit

Franchi-

see leads

units

himself?

Franchisee

works

with a

partner?

Make use

of unit

manager?

Unit manager

responsible for

how many units?

Make use of

operations

manager?

Operations

manager leads

unit without

unit manager?

Operations

manager

supervises

how many

units?

Make use

of deputy

general

manager?

How many

supportive

employees

(clerk,

technician)

D3 40 No No Yes 1 Yes No 3 Yes 0

D8 40 No No Yes 1 traditional unit / 1 traditional unit + 1 satellite unit

Yes No 6 traditional units + 2 satellite units

No 3

D15 40 No No Yes 1 Yes No 5 Yes 4 V3 110 No No Yes 1 No - - No 0 J3 35 No No Yes 1 No - - No 1

K4 25 No Yes, for 1 unit

Yes 1 or 2 No - - No 0

K17

- KFC: 25 - Pizza Hut: 20 - Pizza Hut Express: 8 - Coffee Corner: 3

No No Yes 1 Yes No 3 or 4 No 3

S3 10 Yes, 1 unit No Yes 1 No - - No 0

S5 10 No No Yes 1 traditional unit / 1 traditional unit + 1 satellite unit

No - - No 1

S11 10 No Yes No - Yes Yes 3 or 5 No 3



29

Table 5 shows that nearly all franchisees do not lead units themselves but make use of unit managers

(except for S3 and S11). K17 is the only one who employs operations managers and still supervises

unit managers himself. As an explanation he stated that it is important to stay close to the operational

business. This helps him to monitor changes, problems and to spot trends.

The unit managers are responsible for one unit in most cases (except for D8, K4 and S5). To explain

why not more units are assigned to one unit manager, one franchisee explained:

‘Leading a unit is a full-time job’ (K4).11

Another franchisee stated:

‘To have two restaurants as unit manager does not work, according to my opinion. Either the

unit manager will be totally overchallenged or the task in hand will not be performed

reasonably’ (D8).

The main deviation from this finding are D8 and S5 that own ‘satellite’ and ‘traditional’ units with the

‘satellite’ being connected to the management of a ‘traditional’.

K4 has only one unit manager for two units. He always promotes internal staff but for his last unit he

was not able to find an appropriate employee. Therefore, one manager is now responsible for two units

but simultaneously one employee is trained and it is aspired that he takes over the position as unit

manager for the second unit as fast as possible.

Half of the franchisees employ operations managers (D3, D8, D15, K17 and S11) to supervise the unit

managers and the operational business. This gives the franchisees more time to focus on the

administrative tasks in the backoffice.

The operations managers supervise between three and eight units. D8 assigned most units to his

operations manager. When asked if he thinks his one operations manager can handle the workload he

answered:

‘Two operations managers (…) is exaggerated in my point of view, not necessary, they just get

in each other’s way’ (D8).

Supportive employees are mainly used from the franchisees owning a comparable high amount of

units (D8, D15, J3, K17, S5 and S11).

Table 6 is designed to answer the second part of the sub-question referring to the motives and reasons

to apply a certain organisational structure.

11 As the interviews were originally conducted in German, the interview quotes presented here were translated into English. The original quotes are provided by the researcher on request.


30

Table 6: Overview of the Motives and Reasons for the Chosen Organisational Structure

Franchisee Reasons to employ unit

manager

Reasons to not

employ unit manager

Reasons to employ operations

manager

Reasons to not employ

operations manager

Reasons to employ

deputy general

manager

D3 Rule from franchisor. -

Advice from other multi-unit franchisee; Administrative tasks increased consi-derably with third unit � contact person for unit managers needed so that the franchisee can focus on administrative tasks.

-

The deputy general manager is the son of the franchisee and it was initially planned that he will take over the units once.


Advice from other multi-unit franchisees; Availability of a suitable employee to fulfil this position; Support needed for high amount of operational and administrative tasks.

- -


Took this model over from McDonald’s who supervised 5 company-owned units with one operations manager in the 80s and 90s; Unit managers need close supervision that the franchisee alone cannot perform for 15 units.

-

To have support with tasks on the level of the managing director; To have somebody who can take over the business in case something happens to the franchisee.

V3

A business should not be built solely on one person. There need to be other people who take responsibility also in case the franchisee is not available for some time.

- -

Workload still manageable for the franchisee so he does not see a need to employ an operations manager yet.

-

J3

The franchisee needs to focus on administrative tasks and cannot be in the unit that often anymore. Therefore, he needs one responsible person per unit to take on responsibility. As a result, he only has one contact person per unit.

- -

The franchisee is currently considering employing an operations manager. As he wants to take a current employee he is waiting for a unit manager who offers to do the job.

-


31

Franchisee Reasons to employ unit

manager

Reasons to not

employ unit manager

Reasons to employ operations

manager

Reasons to not employ

operations manager

Reasons to employ

deputy general

manager

K4

To have a contact person for the employees on site and to have somebody who can control the employees.

- - The franchisee wants to maintain close contact to the units.

-

K17 Employees need to have a contact person on site.

-

The franchisee wants to expand and to be able to fulfil his expansion plans he needs operations managers that support him to supervise the unit managers.

- -

S3

It is too time-consuming for the franchisee to do the job alone. Moreover, a lot of tasks like the inventory taking or training for campaigns have to be done at the same time in different locations which is not possible for one manager.

The performance of the unit improved with the intervention of the franchisee and he saves costs for a manager salary.

-

The franchisee can still handle it alone. However, in the past he owned 4 units and realised that it was very work-intensive and lead to a lower dedication to several tasks so that from this company size on an operational manager is needed.

-

S5

To have a contact person for the employees on site and to have somebody who can coordinate the daily business; Manager gives unit a face with which employees and customers can identify.

- -

The franchisee had an operations manager but removed this position as 1. the franchisee wants to preserve close contact to units. 2. the operations manager did not work in accordance with the wishes of the franchisee.

-

S11 -

Leading one unit is not a job that would justify paying a management salary.

The franchisees see themselves as entrepreneurs that want to further expand and need somebody to take over the supervision of the operational tasks.

- -



32

Half of the franchisees (J3, K4, K17, S5 and partly S3) say that a unit needs a contact person that is

responsible for the whole unit and its employees. Therefore the employment of a unit manager is

necessary so that the franchisee has only one person in charge left. The unit manager facilitates the

communication towards the unit for the franchisee and can filter which tasks and decisions can be

taken care of by himself and what needs to be passed on to the franchisee. This reduces the time the

franchisee has to spend on operational tasks and he can focus on administrative tasks.

‘You have to reorganize yourself, leave the daily business and use the time for the important

administrative tasks’ (J3).

McDonald’s is the only franchisor that prescribes its franchisees to apply unit managers. Other reasons

for the employment of unit managers comprised:

• The guarantee to have a successor in case something happens to the franchisee (V3);

• To have somebody who can control the employees (K4);

• To ensure that tasks that have to be done in several units at the same time will be executed as

scheduled (S3);

• The unit manager acts as the representative for customers and employees with whom they can

identify (S5).

For the McDonald’s franchisees D3 and D8 the employment of operations managers was based on the

advice of another franchisee. The third McDonald’s franchisee was influenced by the structure of the

company-owned units of McDonald’s. For K17 and S11 the employment of operations managers is

obligatory to fulfil their goal of further expansion. To be able to do this, the operations managers take

pressure from the franchisees in operational tasks so that the franchisees can focus on the

administrative tasks connected to the expansion plans. Additionally, the need for supervision and a

contact person for the unit manager (D3 and D15) and the need for support (D8) were mentioned.

The two franchisees D3 and D15 that make use of deputy general managers do this with a focus on

their succession planning. Moreover, it was mentioned that this employee functions as a relief from

administrative tasks (D15).

The two Subway franchisees S3 and S11 are the only interviewees not employing one unit manager

for each unit.

‘The background is that if I employ a good manager, I have to pay a reasonable management

salary and one unit does in my opinion not justify the payment of a management salary’ (S11).

However, it has to be considered that one Subway unit has around ten employees while the other

franchise units within this research mainly have around multiple times the employees. The second

Subway franchisee thinks that due to his intervention by leading the unit as unit manager the

performance of the unit increased and it helps him to save costs.


33

‘It works out great right now and I save costs, altogether this is very good’ (S3).

Among the reasons to not employ operations managers V3 and S3 mentioned that they are still able to

handle the workload themselves. K4 and S5 want to preserve their close contact to their units and

therefore be the direct contact person. S5 stated that he was not satisfied with the operations manager

and therefore removed this position. On the other hand, J3 wants to hire an operations manager but is

missing a suitable candidate.

4.2. Knowledge Sharing across Units

After regarding the organisational structure of the multi-unit franchise business, the knowledge

sharing across these units is addressed. Thereby the second sub-question considering the appearance of

knowledge sharing across units, how it does take place in which areas of the business and for which

reasons is observed.

Knowledge sharing between the franchise units is supported by all franchisees. They see more value in

fostering knowledge sharing than to stir up the performance competition. For the franchisees it is only

advantageous if the unit managers cooperate as it gives them the chance to learn from each other and

to increase the performance of their units. Because of this the overall knowledge of the units and its

employees increases and represents the major reason why the knowledge sharing between the units is

promoted by the franchisee.

‘The experiences that are made and shared are better for me than the ones that are kept to

oneself, because in the end they should all benefit from each other’ (V3).

Moreover, as K17 explained while referring to the direct communication between the units instead of

communication via the operations managers or the franchisee:

‘If you can reach more with this shorter way, you should do it. (…) The advantage is for me

that I have to invest less time and additionally my operations managers have to intervene less’

(K17).

J3 fosters this exchange by sending the unit manager to a different unit for some days and D15 even

switches the unit managers between the units. Therewith they want to facilitate the sharing of practices

that might differ between units. For J3 this also means that in case a unit manager leaves, he can give

the responsibility to one of his other unit managers.

K4 supports the knowledge sharing unequivocally due to the franchise business structure. He as a

franchisee has the advantage that nobody can undermine his position. So all knowledge his employees

have can only be advantageous.

Almost all franchisees (except for S3) hold regular meetings with the unit managers and operations

managers and the deputy general manager if existent to discuss business-wide topics. These meetings

are considered as formal knowledge sharing compared to informal knowledge sharing described


34

below. The frequency of those meetings differs between every week and every three month. However,

most franchisees hold a meeting at least once a month. Only S3 reports that he does not hold meetings

due to time constraints. He used to do it and intends to introduce it again.

In these formal meetings all current issues are discussed. One important topic is the review of the

business assessment to see if the goals set for the single unit in terms of turnover, costs and the

compliance with operating numbers were achieved. Additionally, upcoming problems are discussed.

The franchisee uses it for example to inform about new marketing campaigns carried out by the

franchisor.

Moreover, there is informal contact between the unit managers which is supported by the franchisee.

The franchisees do not know in detail the content of the discussions between the unit managers but

they know that they contact each other to discuss current problems they encounter with their staff or

with a guest, to compare the turnover or to organize an exchange of goods which is necessary when

one unit sells more food than calculated.

Table 7 summarises which franchisees make use of formal knowledge sharing in which frequency by

incorporating which managers and if they support the informal knowledge sharing between the units.

Table 7: Overview of the Ways of Sharing Knowledge

Franchisee Formal

meetings How many formal meetings? Participants

Informal

contact?

D3 Yes Every two weeks Franchisee, deputy general manager, operations manager, unit managers

Yes

D8 Yes Twice a month + strategy meeting once a year

Franchisee, operations manager, unit managers

Yes

D15 Yes Every three month + budget meeting once a year

Franchisee, deputy general manager, operations managers, unit managers, clerks (on request)

Yes

V3 Yes Once a month Franchisee, unit managers Yes J3 Yes Once a week Franchisee, unit managers Yes K4 Yes Once a month Franchisee, unit managers Yes

K17 Yes Every two weeks Franchisee, operations managers, unit managers

Yes

S3 No - - Yes S5 Yes Once a month Franchisee, unit managers Yes S11 Yes Once a month Franchisee, operations managers Yes


4.3. Standardisation

This chapter addresses the sub-question asking which tasks are standardised independently from the

rules imposed by the franchisor.

When asked about standardisation, all franchisees explained that there is a high level of

standardisation already imposed by the franchisor, especially within the day-to-day operational

business.


35

‘In the operational business there is nothing really we can change’ (D15).

These regulations mainly cover the operational part of the business, meaning the area of food

preparation, safety, hygiene and physical appearance of the unit and its employees. For this reason the

level of standardisation additionally created by the franchisee for the multi-unit business is low.

Nevertheless, it is considered as an important aspect as the additional standardisation by the franchisee

closes gaps that arise due to the size of the business and cannot be addressed by the franchisor. Table 8

shows aspects which were reported as being additionally standardised by the franchisee:

Table 8: Areas of Standardisation

Area of standardisation

Franchi-

see

Benefit

Scheme

Regular

team

meetings

for the unit

Regular team

meeting between

franchisee,

operations manager,

unit manager

Inven-

tory

holding

Inven-

tory

taking

Office

organi-

sation

Calculation

of employee

food

Way to

commu-

nicate

with the

guest

D3 x x D8 x x x D15 x x x x x V3 x x x J3 x x K4 x x x K17 x S3 S5 x x S11 x x


It can be seen that most of the standardisation refers to regular meetings. Half of the interviewed

franchisees (D3, D8, D15, V3 and K4) prescribe their unit managers to do regular team meetings

within their unit. On the other side, some franchisees (J3, K17, S3, S5 and S11) do not set it as a rule

because they do not want to restrict the field of responsibility of the unit manager. However, regular

meetings with all unit managers and operations managers to analyse the development of the units and

to enable the communication between the different management layers are standardised by all but S3.

Looking at other areas of franchisor-independent standardisation, the two McDonald’s franchisees D8

and D15 developed bonus systems for their unit and operations managers. S11 developed a bonus

system for his operation managers. Besides this he purposely did not develop any further standards as

he wants to leave this to the operations manager.

V3 developed a system about how to fill and organize the stock to simplify the handling. D15

designed a system to organize the monthly inventory taking to minimize the intervention in the daily

business.

K4 came up with a filing system for all units to facilitate the handling for the employees in case they

are relocated. J3 designed a system to collect documents he is supposed to get from his employees by

determining a common place to store them.


36

To simplify the calculation of employee food in terms of tax considerations, meaning the food every

employee gets for free during his shift, D15 developed a system together with his tax accountant that

became well-known within McDonald’s Deutschland Inc. and is used by other franchisees aswell.

To improve the customer service S5 developed a standard way of how to communicate with the guest.

Analyzing the degree of standardisation done per franchisee, it can be said that the level of

standardisation is not automatically higher for businesses with more franchise units.

4.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation

The sub-questions for the fourth analysis topic ask which tasks and responsibilities are

centralised/decentralised and what could be identified as motives and reasons.

Table 9 shows that the areas where centralisation or decentralisation mainly take place are finance,

marketing and HR.

Table 9: Centralisation and Decentralisation of Tasks and Responsibilities

Centralised Decentralised

Franchisee Finance Marketing HR Finance Marketing HR

D3 x x x x D8 x x x x D15 x x x x V3 x x x x J3 x x x x x K4 x x x x x K17 x x x x S3 x x x x S5 x x x x S11 x x x x


When asked for their motives and reasons to centralise or decentralise a task, most franchisees

mentioned more than one explanation. Therefore, the statements are summarized.

Finance is centrally handled by all franchisees. An administrative team consisting of clerks employed

with the company and/or external tax consultants and accountants support the franchisee. The reasons

for the centralisation are:

• Finance is a decisive part of the business and needs to be handled by the decision makers.

• The unit managers should focus on their job in operations and not have additional backoffice

tasks which occupy their time.

• This area of the business contains information which should only be known by the franchisee

and his assistants.


37

‘But I want to handle certain things myself, because some things don’t have anything to do

with anybody apart from me. (…) They should take care of the operational business and

accounting is something I do myself’ (K4).

• Only the franchisee has the knowledge regarding all units and the business as a whole to

evaluate the business assessment and to interpret the implications.

• The unit managers do not have the educational background to elaborate the figures.

• In finance it is important that certain aspects are treated and analysed in the same way so that

there is comparability across units. In case of a decentralised handling different unit managers

would charge expenses and returns differently which would hinder this comparability.

The marketing that can be made independently from the franchisor is mainly in the hands of the

franchisees. The following reasons are stated for this centralisation:

• Marketing is an administrative task which should therefore be handled by the administrative

team and not by the unit manager who fulfils operative tasks in the unit.

‘The unit manager should work on-site in the restaurant with the guest and should focus on

it (…). The money is made in the unit and the main responsibility of the unit manager is the

operative management, so we decided to do the marketing tasks in the backoffice

completely’ (D3).

• It is a task the franchisee is interested in and does with pleasure.

• The franchisee has more background knowledge about the franchise system and can handle

marketing tasks better than his unit managers.

• The franchisee works with an advertising agency and giving that agency different contact

persons in case of a decentralisation would lead to irritations.

However, some franchisees (J3, K4 and S11) decentralised the local store marketing, meaning the

marketing every store can do on his own, due to the following reasons:

• The local managers know their clientele better and know how to ideally communicate with

them.

• The local managers are better informed about the events in their city and how to participate as

sponsor.

S11 decentralised the whole franchisor-independent marketing to his operations managers due to the

mentioned reasons. J3 and K4 use a mixture of centralisation and decentralisation. J3 centralised one

part of his marketing as he is part of a city-wide advertising community with other Joey’s franchisees.

Together they do advertising that they would not be able to finance on their own. For the local sphere

of influence the franchisee leaves the marketing to his unit managers as they are better informed and

know their district and clientele better. K4 centralised the part of marketing he considers as general for

all units like the renting of billboards as he is the contact person for the supplying marketing company


38

and does a plan for the whole area. But he also decentralised a part of his marketing activities by

handing the flyer delivery or local company visits to his unit managers.

Regarding HR all franchisees practise a mix of centralisation and decentralisation. Thereby the

franchisees differ in the freedom they give their managers in hiring employees. Some franchisees

allow their unit managers to employ marginal employees, while others also give them the task to hire

part-time and full-time employees. This differentiation is made because part-time and full-time

employees spend more time in the unit and represent the company more. Therefore, the franchisees

often want to decide if those employees fulfil their requirements. Additionally, S5 stated that it has

higher labour law-related implications to fire a part-time or full-time worker than to fire marginal

employees. Thus, he has a high interest in finding the right employee and lowering the labour

turnover.

Other franchisees make a distinction between shift leaders that are employed by the franchisee while

the other employees are hired by the unit manager. This differentiation is due to the fact that shift

leaders have a higher degree of responsibility and as a result the franchisee wants to decide if he can

give this level of responsibility to an applicant and if he has the needed education. K17 sees the future

leaders for the business in the employees from shift leader onward and therefore wants to evaluate

himself if they are appropriate.

‘I don’t employ anybody who wants to work as shift leader or assistant manager his whole

life. I employ somebody for the position of shift leader or assistant manager if I think he can

maybe take over the operations manager position’ (K17).

Nine out of ten franchisees (except for S11 who does not employ unit managers) allow their unit

managers to employ marginal employees respectively employees below the shift leader. As reasons for

this decentralisation the franchisees mentioned:

• There is a high labour turnover in the food service industry. Hiring every employee would

consume too much time of the franchisee.

• To motivate the unit manager, the franchisee wants to give him some responsibility by

allowing him to form his own team.

• Every unit manager is different in terms of his characteristics and leadership style. As a result,

the unit manager should choose the employees himself to ensure a good team work.

• In the food service industry, a lot of applicants just walk into the unit and ask for a job. If they

were told that they have to meet somewhere else with the franchisee they might not turn up.

So if there is a contact person that can decide right away if he needs employees and if the

applicant might fit to the company, then there is a higher likelihood to bind those applicants.

• The unit managers have to reach certain performance results within their unit regarding

turnover or employee productivity. To reach their goals, the employees are a decisive ‘tool’,

so they need to be able to choose them.


39

‘It doesn’t help if I take their tools and tell them: I expect good key figures but I don’t give

you any tools or choose your tools’ (J3).

D15 additionally allows his unit managers to employ shift leaders as he sees his unit manager as the

most important person within the business.

‘This task belongs to the area of responsibility of the unit managers as they are our talent

scouts’ (D15).

In the case of S11 the whole responsibility regarding employment is assigned to the operations

managers. This is due to the fact that the franchisee practices the leadership model called ‘Harzburger

Modell’ which says, among other things, that an employee identifies more with a decision if he thinks

it is his idea. So they leave this decision-making power to them.

K17 allows his unit managers to hire employees but not to fire them. He explained this by saying that

he wants to find out why the unit manager wants the employee to leave and to ensure that there is no

possibility to keep him.

‘In my career, in my experience and in my job I learned one thing. (…) There is no one person

on earth that does a bad job on purpose. (…) somebody worked well the last six month and

suddenly he does a bad job…. There has to be a story behind it’ (K17).

Besides the hiring and firing of employees the unit managers in all franchise businesses are

responsible for the training, supervision and motivation of all employees.

Another task that was decentralised by all franchisees – besides the operative business within the unit

which makes up the core of the work of the unit manager – is the ordering of goods by means of the

standardised franchisor supply chain.

Besides those aspects there were only minor other points centralised. K4 for example rented an

external office for his unit managers as a quiet workplace. Additionally, he has a central agent that

visits the restaurants and picks up the revenues to bring them to the bank. J3 centralised the cleaning

of his units by using an external company. S11 centralised the contracts with suppliers in areas like

repair, pest control or mobile phones to exploit cost savings due to economies of scale.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Discussion

40

5. DISCUSSION

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the topics raised in the literature review and the findings presented

in Chapter 4. When findings are substantial, propositions as directions for further research are

introduced.

5.1. Organisational Structure

The first sub-question is related to the organisational structure within the multi-unit business. The

depiction and comparison of the different organisational structures of the interviewed franchisees

shows that most of the franchisees make use of unit managers and mainly appoint one unit manager

per unit.

From a certain amount of units on the franchisees make use of operations managers. They function as

supervisor and first contact person. With the appointment of the operations manager the franchisee

mainly leaves the operational supervision of the business and focuses on the rising administrative

aspects of the business.

To summarise, the organisational structure outlined in the literature review with different layers

consisting of unit managers and operations managers is supported with only minor exceptions. Hence,

the assumption of Jones (1999) that there are different management layers and the statements of

Kaufmann and Dant (1996) and Kalnins and Lafontaine (2004) referring to the appointment of unit

managers can be confirmed.

However, there are no franchisees still managing all units on their own. So this suggestion the

researcher made in the literature review cannot be verified. The franchisees in this sample had at least

three units. Consequently, it could be concluded that this form of management might be prevalent if

the franchisee only owns two units. However, all franchisees reported that they appointed at least one

unit manager when they bought the second unit. Therefore, the possible parts of an organisational

structure within multi-unit franchising are:

Figure 17: Organisational Structure and its Components


41

There is no clear pattern observable from when on an operations manager is needed. Looking at the

franchisees owning a smaller amount of units, one franchisee employs an operations manager while

the other franchisees with a comparable number of units do not. The amount of employees per unit can

only partly explain this. Some franchisees have a lower amount of total employees to supervise than

the franchisee employing an operations manager, however, one franchisee has more employees and

does not employ an operations manager. Therefore, for this franchisee another reason must play a role.

An additional explanation for this franchisee might be that he considers his unit managers more as

executive staff than the other franchisees owning a comparable amount of units. He articulated during

the interview that he gives his unit managers a high amount of freedom for operational decisions. Due

to this higher level of responsibility the unit managers in this franchise business take over tasks that

belong to the area of responsibility of the operations manager in comparable organisations. Therefore,

the franchisee does not need to employ an operations manager. As a result, a combination of the

number of units, the employees in total and the latitude the unit managers have could indicate when

operations managers are employed.

Proposition 1: The higher the number of owned units as well as employees per unit and the

lower the responsibility of the unit managers, the more likely is the appointment of operations

managers.

Supportive employees are more prevalent in businesses with more franchise units. Here the number of

owned units seems to be more decisive than the number of employees in total. However, one

franchisee owning only three units employs a clerk. A possible explanation could be how many

external service companies contract with the franchisee. It might be possible that some of the

franchisees owning a lower amount of units outsource their book keeping, tax affairs or personnel

administration while this franchisee employs a clerk to take over a part of these tasks.

Proposition 2: The higher the amount of franchise units within a multi-unit franchise business

and the lower the amount of service companies performing supportive tasks, the more likely is

the appointment of clerks.

In the literature review it was suggested that the organisational structure is comparable to the

divisional configuration like explained by Burton et al. (2006). This can be confirmed as every

franchise unit constitutes an own business which can to a certain degree perform independently from

the other units. Burton et al. (2006) state that the divisional structure functions best if there is limited

involvement from the top which gives the unit the opportunity to focus on the market regarding

products, customers or region. It is controversial if this limited involvement is decisive and needed in

the case of franchising as there is limited customisation possible to better serve local conditions due to

the high degree of standardisation imposed by the franchisor. Additionally, the units are usually in

close geographic distance so that there are no significant differences in markets or customer

preferences that could justify a customisation.


42

The research shows that the organisational structure follows the single-line system, meaning that an

employee can only receive instructions from his direct supervisor. According to Nicolai (2009) this

has the advantage that is shows clearly for everybody with whom to communicate and from whom to

get instructions. Nevertheless, even though the franchisees explain their structure in this way, they do

not always follow it and talk to their unit managers directly. This can weaken the authority of the

operations manager. Additionally, it is revealed that the employees on one organisational level

frequently talk to each other. Following the argumentation of Fayol and Reineke (1929) this is

possible within the single-line system as long as the superiors know about this communication and are

informed about the outcome. In the current sample the franchisees knew and supported the

communication within one level. However, they were only informed about the outcome sporadically.

Proposition 3: Multi-unit franchisees apply the single-line system within their organisational

structure.

The organisational structure seems to influence the behaviour and tasks of the franchisee which is in

turn connected to the principal-agent problem. The franchisees without an operations manager see a

necessity to supervise their units. However, from the moment on when they employ an operations

manager this task mainly rests with him. To ensure that the operations manager acts in the interest of

the franchisee, the franchisees work with a bonus system.

Proposition 4: Multi-unit franchisees with a comparably low amount of owned units try to

ensure that the actions of their managers are in their interest by supervising the unit directly

themselves.

Proposition 5: When there is an operations manager employed, multi-unit franchisees try to

ensure that the actions of their managers are in their interest by granting performance-related

bonuses to their operations managers.

Interestingly, when the franchisees were asked if they think that the unit managers act in their interest,

nearly all franchisees confirmed it. Nevertheless, all franchisees also admitted that they see a necessity

to control their unit managers either by themselves or through operations managers.

Comparing the given answers about motives and reasons to apply a certain organisational structure

with the motives and reasons presented in the literature review in Chapter 2.3.1, it can be said that all

of these were mentioned during the research.

McDonald’s prescribes their franchisees to employ unit managers. However, from five franchise

systems that were interviewed this appeared only in one system. This could be due to the fact that

multi-unit ownership is highly prevalent in this franchise system so that the franchisor sees a necessity

to set special rules.

Proposition 6: The higher the amount of multi-unit franchisees within a franchise system, the

more likely the franchisor sets rules specifically for these multi-unit franchise businesses.


43

The motive of costs plays a role only for one franchisee. On the opposite some other franchisees

emphasised that not having to pay a management salary, for example by appointing one unit manager

for two units or by not appointing an operations manager, would save money in the short term but in

the long term the performance of the team would decrease. This would be even more expensive than

hiring a manager. Even more, some franchisees think that hiring a manager increases the performance

more than the costs that are bound to it. Therewith this motive appears to be not of high relevance in

practice.

Looking at the leadership style of the interviewed franchisees it seems to be democratic in most

situations. The franchisees aspire an exchange with their employees. However, in certain situations,

the franchisees expect that rules are just followed. This is especially demanded in the case of the

standards imposed by the franchisor. In this case the leadership style appears autocratic. Nevertheless,

there are also situations in which franchisees could be classified as laissez-faire leaders, e.g. in

situations in which the franchisee gives his managers wide-reaching responsibilities. Therefore, a

franchisee seems not to have just one leadership style but the leadership style seems to be dependent

on the faced situation. Hersey et al. (2001) support that there are different leadership styles inherent in

one person and call it situational leadership style. Measured with the above definition, all interviewed

franchisees seem to have a comparable leadership style. As a result, it cannot be assessed if the

leadership style influences the organisational structure.

Advice from other multi-unit franchisees also plays a role for some franchisees. Therewith the view of

Lawrence & Kaufmann (2011) and Dickey (2003) saying that the relationship between the franchisees

influences their attitude and behaviour can be supported.

Proposition 7: The organisational structure of a multi-unit franchise business is influenced by

the organisational structure of other multi-unit franchisees within the same franchise system.

As a last point, it was proposed by the researcher that the availability of appropriate personnel to fill

the management positions as unit or operations managers influences the organisational structure. The

results here are ambiguous as two franchisees supported it but one franchisee contradicted this reason

during the interviews.

There are also other reasons to employ unit managers and operations managers mentioned by the

franchisees. The franchisees especially mentioned that there is a need for a contact person within the

unit so that the franchisee always has one responsible person and the employees do not contact the

franchisee for every problem. Moreover, the unit manager organizes the work within a unit and can

control the employees.

Proposition 8: The organisational structure of a multi-unit franchise business is influenced by the

need for a contact person within a unit to supervise and control the employees and to take

pressure off the multi-unit franchisee.


44

5.2. Knowledge Sharing Across Units

Knowledge sharing was researched as second indicator of the organisational configuration.

Comparing the results with the literature, it can be said that the argument of Quinn et al. (1996) saying

that the knowledge sharing leads to a growth of the knowledge in total can be clearly supported.

Therefore it is promoted by all franchisees.

Proposition 9: Knowledge sharing across units leads to a growth of the total knowledge

inherent within the multi-unit franchise business.

Referring to the article of Sorenson and Sørensen (2001) it can be said that multi-unit franchising

seems to be able to use the knowledge generated within other units of the multi-unit franchise

business. So there appears to be a common knowledge base created by the franchisee. Due to this the

multi-unit franchisee seems to have the opportunity to learn from knowledge sharing more than the

single-unit franchisee trying to exchange his knowledge with other single-unit franchisees.

Moreover, the research revealed a second reason why the franchisees support the knowledge sharing

across units: It reduces the workload of the franchisee and the operations managers. Through

knowledge sharing the unit managers are able to solve problems that would otherwise have to be

handled either by the operations manager or the franchisee.

Proposition 10: Knowledge sharing across units facilitates to solve problems between unit

managers and reduces the workload for operations managers and the franchisee.

All interviewed franchisees see no advantage in stirring up the competition between the units instead

of fostering cooperation. They want their employees to help each other. However, when asked what is

discussed during formal meetings it turned out that the comparison of the performance across the units

is an important aspect. So there is competition inherent in their relationship. Therefore, the

relationship could possibly be characterized more as coopetition than cooperation. According to Tsai

(2002) and Luo (2005) coopetition can be described as an inter-unit relationship that has components

of cooperation and competition. This implies that the units must have a reason for competition. There

is competition in being the best-performing unit. But this might not be enough to classify the

relationship as coopetition. Tsai (2002) states that the competition implies rivalry for limited resources

of the company or the attempt to outperform other units offering comparable products. In the case of

multi-unit franchising the relationship might turn into coopetition when the bonus system is

interdependent, meaning a higher bonus for one manager implies a lower bonus for another manager.

Additionally, if there is close proximity between the units, they might vie for customers.

Consequently, it has to be assessed situation-specific if the relationship is cooperative including

unrestricted knowledge-sharing or if there is a reason to retain knowledge. If there are reasons for

inter-unit competition, this might negatively influence the willingness to share knowledge.


45

The interviews did not allow a judgement if the formal or the informal knowledge sharing is more

expedient. It appears that both are of the same importance for the business but they seem to have

different goals. While the formal meetings seem to discuss problems on a company level the informal

knowledge sharing solves individual problems within the unit.


The degree of franchisor-independent standardisation is described as low by all franchisees. This can

be explained by the high degree of standardisation already imposed by the franchisor. These binding

regulations seem to lead to an efficient functioning and simplify bureaucratic operations so that there

is a limited need for more standardisation. Nevertheless, the franchisees see a necessity for some

standardisation within their business.

According to Aldrich (2008) the size and the complexity of an organisation encourages the

standardisation of procedures. However, in the specific case of multi-unit franchising the results from

the interviews do not unequivocally support this. The level of standardisation is not automatically

higher for businesses with more units.

Proposition 11: A growing number of units in the multi-unit franchise business does not lead

to a higher degree of franchisor-independent standardisation.

Nevertheless, it seems that the likelihood to develop a bonus system is higher for franchisees owning a

higher amount of units.

Proposition 12: A growing number of units in the multi-unit franchise business leads to a

higher likelihood to develop a bonus system.

5.4. Centralisation and Decentralisation

In the literature review it was predicted that tasks like finance, marketing and HR will be handled in a

centralised manner. The research partly supports this.

Finance is handled centrally by all franchisees. Supporting the argumentation of Brooke (1984), Child

(1984) and Carnall (2007) this is mainly due to the fact that it is a task of high strategic importance.

Proposition 13: Finance is an area of the multi-unit franchise business that is handled by the

multi-unit franchisee in a centralised manner.

Nine out of ten franchisees centralised the marketing tasks that can be made independently from the

franchisor. But different to finance where mainly the strategic importance for the business seems to be

decisive, the local knowledge of the unit seems to play a role here aswell. As a result, three franchisees

decentralised the marketing partly. This decision was lead by considerations taking into account the

local conditions. Child (1984) presents this as a reason for decentralisation. However, it is


46

questionable how wide-reaching the freedom of decision of the employees in this area is. As there is

involvement by the franchisee the contribution of the manager might only lie in the execution of

already designed marketing tools. This decentralisation of supportive tasks then is in line with the

suggestions made in the literature review. Hence, there is no clear pattern observable regarding the

centralisation or decentralisation of marketing tasks.

Moreover, when asked for the motives and reasons for the centralisation of HR and marketing, it was

mentioned by the interviewees that a broad overview about the company is needed to perform the

tasks adequately like suggested by Brooke (1984), Child (1984) and Carnall (2007).

HR is handled by a mixture of centralisation and decentralisation. The personnel with a higher degree

of responsibility and/or more presence within the unit is of higher strategic importance for the unit due

to the higher responsibilities and therefore their hiring is centralised. Nearly all franchisees explained

during the interview that they prefer to fill vacant management positions internally, meaning that they

find their future leaders within the company. This is a common strategy (De Souza, 2002; Rothwell,

2010) and could be another argument for the centralisation. The franchisees want to keep promising

candidates for management positions under review and decide when and if they should be promoted

On the other hand, marginal employee handling is deliberately decentralised which is mainly a result

of time considerations by the franchisee and shall increase the motivation of the manager.

Additionally, it takes into considerations the opportunity for the unit manager to form a well-

functioning team with which he can reach his prescribed performance goals. Moreover, the training,

motivation and supervision of employees are decentralized as it is regarded as a part of the operational

business. Therewith the reasons for decentralisation described in the literature review by Brooke

(1984), Child (1984) and Carnall (2007) are confirmed in practice.

Proposition 14: Within HR management, the personnel with a higher degree of responsibility

and/or more presence within the unit is managed in a centralised manner while the marginal

employee handling is decentralised.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Conclusion

47

6. CONCLUSION

This chapter starts by summarizing the conducted research in the first section followed by presenting

the academic and managerial implications. Afterwards the limitations are presented. It ends with

constituting areas for further research.

6.1. Summary of the Research

This exploratory research aimed to shed some light on the so far underresearched topic of the

organisational configuration of the multi-unit franchise business by investigating the four factors

organisational structure, knowledge sharing across units, level of standardisation and level of

centralisation/decentralisation from a franchisee perspective. To achieve this aim ten multi-unit

franchisees from five different franchise systems within the system catering industry owning between

three and 17 units on the German market were interviewed.

It can be said that there are patterns identifiable across different franchising systems and multi-unit

franchisees owning a different number of units. However, there are still differences in the handling of

the mentioned points within one franchise system and between multi-unit franchisees with the same

amount of units belonging to different franchise systems. Different motives and reasons play a role

and were investigated for three out of the four sub-topics.

Looking at the organisational structure, it was disclosed that most multi-unit franchisees make use of

unit managers and from a certain size of the business on also employ operations managers. Deputy

general managers and clerks are used aswell. The motivations for a chosen organisational structure are

diverse, reaching from a rule set by the franchisor, advice from other multi-unit franchisees to the need

for a contact person within the unit. Considering the second indicator describing the organisational

configuration, it was revealed that all multi-unit franchisees support the formal and informal

knowledge sharing between their units to make use of the increased knowledge of their employees and

the reduced need for involvement by the multi-unit franchisee and the operations manager. The level

of franchisor-independent standardisation is low and the level of standardisation does not

automatically increase with a growing number of owned units. Regarding the research made in the

area of centralisation and decentralisation, it was found out that finance is centrally handled by the

multi-unit franchisees due to its high strategic importance. Marketing is mainly standardised. The

multi-unit franchisees that decentralised a part of their marketing make use the local knowledge of

their unit managers. HR is handled by a mixture of centralisation and decentralisation. The personnel

with a higher degree of responsibility and/or more presence within the unit is of higher strategic

importance for the unit and therefore their hiring is centralised. Marginal employee handling is

deliberately decentralised which is mainly a result of time consideration by the multi-unit franchisee

and shall increase the motivation of the manager.


48

By taking into consideration the four aspects presented above defined as the indicators of the

organisational configuration, the main research question was answered.

When picking up the principal-agent problem inherent in multi-unit franchising that was explained in

the introduction, it can be said that the multi-unit franchisees are aware of this problem. While multi-

unit franchisees with a comparably low amount of units try to manage the employee supervision

themselves, multi-unit franchisees with more franchise units align the actions of their managers to

their interests by introducing a bonus system.

6.2. Academic and Managerial Implications

Franchising is a topic that is of increasing importance in business management and that is today more

often the focus of research (Dada et al., 2010). Therefore, this master thesis aims to contribute on two

levels, theory and practice:

Firstly, it theoretically enhances the knowledge about the management of multi-unit franchise

businesses. These considerations fit in seamlessly with the current state of the literature and help to

specifically enrich the knowledge about multi-unit franchising as well as the franchisee’s perspective

on franchising. Therewith this research aims to enrich the knowledge about a topic which is already

common in today’s business world. In detail, this master thesis contributes by extending the

knowledge about multi-unit management in general and about the organisational configuration of

multi-unit franchise businesses specifically. Thereby it represents the first paper to study this area

within multi-unit franchising. It shows first findings, however, there is still a wide array of topics for

future research. Thus it presents several propositions as directions for further research that should be

picked up by other researchers to explore this field of franchising more in depth.

Secondly, the gained knowledge can support (aspiring) multi-unit franchisees in their decision if to

conduct multi-unit franchising by giving them a first indication about what to expect in terms of

organisational configuration. If they decide to become multi-unit franchisees, this research shows them

a first starting point about how to organize their business and which questions they need to consider

deciding on the most targeting configuration for them. Additionally, it helps franchisors in developing

the right support and training for their multi-unit franchisees. Moreover, it assists the franchisor in

understanding his multi-unit franchisees in a better way and the tasks and challenges they face. This

facilitates the communication between the franchisor and the multi-unit franchisee and is especially

important for franchisors that do not maintain company-owned units themselves but function as mere

administrators of the franchise brand and are therefore not that experienced with the maintenance of

several units.


49

6.3. Limitations

This master thesis is not without limitations. Firstly, even though ten multi-unit franchisees gave a first

insight into different forms of organisational configuration within multi-unit franchising, it does

certainly not reflect the German market in general. Therefore, further research should be conducted by

investigating the topic with a sample representative for the whole German market. Additionally, this

study addresses a specific industry, the system catering industry. The results for other industries like

fitness service or retail may vary considerably.

Furthermore, this study focuses on a specific group of multi-unit franchisees, namely franchisees that

pursue sequential multi-unit franchising by starting with one unit and gradually adding units to their

business. There may lay a difference in the organisational configuration if – like in the case of master

franchising – the task of the franchisee mainly lies in finding sub-franchisees to expand the business.

In the case of master franchising the organisational structure of the business is most-likely less

influenced by the principal-agent-problem as the franchisee contracts with sub-franchisees that are in

turn responsible for their units so that the franchisee acts more like a franchisor below the main

franchisor.

Another limitation concerns the results of the study which rely on data gathered during interviews. No

other data sources were used. This is due to the fact that there are no secondary sources holding the

information required. Only the multi-unit franchisee can answer the questions, especially when it

comes to the revelation of motives. As a result, the statements of the multi-unit franchisees could not

be verified.

Moreover, the basis of the research are in-depth interviews conducted by the researcher herself. This

might lead to the overinterpretation or misinterpretation of answers. However, as this study was

exploratory in nature, semi-structured interviews were the best way to gather a wide array of data to

identify first patterns. Additionally, the researcher tried to prevent investigator bias by reading and

rereading the transcripts several times.

6.4. Further Research

As indicated above, the chosen sample is not representative for the whole German market and was

conducted in a specific industry. Therefore, the researcher advises to conduct the research again by

selecting different industries and testing it on a larger scale with a more representative sample to

increase the generalisability.

During the discussion different propositions were introduced as a result of the research. To enhance

the knowledge about the organisational configuration of multi-unit franchise businesses, researchers

should use these propositions as a starting point for future research. Moreover, the research showed

ambiguous results for certain subjects. To shed more light on these subjects, researchers should pick

them up again and investigate them more in detail.


50

During the interviews it was noticeable that the multi-unit franchisees from McDonald’s and KFC, the

two franchise systems that operate company-owned units, often had a comparable point of view about

a topic. Even though these topics were not in the direct sphere of influence of the franchisor, it seems

that the franchisor does indirectly influence the multi-unit franchisees and their point of view and

behaviour. Therefore, it would contribute to the knowledge about multi-unit franchising to examine in

which way the culture lived by the franchisor influences the organisational configuration the multi-

unit franchisee chooses and which role the company-owned units play in this process.

In the literature review it was stated that there is no research conducted on the difference in

management challenges between single-unit and multi-unit franchisees. As a recommendation for

research this topic should be addressed to reveal what differences exist in which intensity. The

conducted interviews already show that there is a difference between the management challenges of

those two kinds of franchisees. Additionally, the interviews indicate that there are differences in the

question which tasks belong to the responsibility of which manager within the multi-unit business and

therefore it deserves more attention.

During the interviews the multi-unit franchisees revealed different reasons for becoming multi-unit

franchisees. These reasons range from seeing the multi-unit business as personal pension insurance to

the insight from a single-unit franchisee that he is unchallenged and could achieve more. Therefore,

further research should be conducted in this area. This might be an enhancement to the research of

Grünhagen and Mittelstaedt (2002) who justify the existence of multi-unit franchising from a

franchisee perspective with the existence of economies of scale and increased influence upon the

franchisor.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising List of References

51

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aldrich, H. (2008) Organizations and Environments. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

BdS (2012a) Joey's Pizza Service. Available at: http://www.bundesverband-systemgastronomie.de/joeys.html (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

BdS (2012b) Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Available at: http://www.bundesverband-systemgastronomie.de/kfc.html (Accessed: 3 Novermber 2013).

BdS (2012c) Umsatz/Restaurants. Available at: http://www.bundesverband-systemgastronomie.de/umsatzrestaurants.html (Accessed: 4 November 2013).

BdS (2012d) Vapiano. Available at: http://www.bundesverband-systemgastronomie.de/vapiano.html (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2001) 'Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective', Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), pp. 23-56.

bfa and NatWest (2011) NatWest bfa Franchise Survey. [Online]. Available at: http://qutisclinics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/NatWest-bfa-Franchise-Survey-2011.pdf (Accessed: 25 September 2013).

Boulay, J. (2010) 'The role of contract, information systems and norms in the governance of franchise systems', International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(9), pp. 662-676.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) 'Using thematic analysis in psychology', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77-101.

British Franchise Association (2013) The History of Franchising. Available at: http://www.thebfa.org/about-franchising/the-history-of-franchising (Accessed: 23 September 2013).

Brooke, M. Z. (1984) Centralization and Autonomy: A Study in Organization Behaviour. East Sussex: Holt, Rinehart an Winston Ltd.

Burton, R. M., DeSanctis, G. and Obel , B. (2006) Organizational Design - A Step-by-Step Approach. Cambridge University Press

Carnall, C. A. (2007) Managing Change in Organizations. Essex: Pearson Education.

Child, J. (1984) Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice. London: Harper & Row.

Colonel Sanders (n.d.) Colonel Sanders. Available at: http://colonelsanders.com/history_colonelSanders.asp (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Combs, J. G. and Ketchen, D. J. (2003) 'Why do firms use franchising as an entrepreneurial strategy?: A meta-analysis', Journal of Management, 29(3), pp. 443-465.

Dada, O. L., Watson, A. and Kirby, D. A. (2010) 'Toward a model of franchisee entrepreneurship', International Small Business Journal, 30(5), pp. 559-583.

Dant, R. P., Grünhagen, M. and Windsperger, J. (2011) 'Franchising research frontiers for the twenty-first century', Journal of Retailing, 87(3), pp. 253-268.

Dant, R. P. and Gundlach, G. T. (1999) 'The challenge of autonomy and dependence in franchised channels of distribution', Journal of Business Venturing, 14(1), pp. 35-67.


52

De Souza, G. (2002) 'A study of the influence of promotions on promotion satisfaction and expectations of future promotions among managers', Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 325-340.

Dickey, M. H. (2003) 'The Effect of Electronic Communication Among Franchisees on Franchisee Compliance', Journal of Marketing Channels, 10(3), pp. 111-132.

DiPietro, R. B., Murphy, K. S., Rivera, M. and Muller, C. C. (2007) 'Multi-unit management key success factors in the casual dining restaurant industry: A case study', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(7), pp. 524-536.

Drucker, P. (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. Butterworth.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989a) 'Agency theory: An assessment and review', Academy of Management Review, 14(1), pp. 57-74.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b) 'Building theories from case study research', Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.

Ellis, D. J. and Pekar, P. P. J. (1979) 'Franchising: Friend or Foe?', Strategy & Leadership, 7(1), pp. 11-35.

Fayol, H. and Reineke, K. (1929) Allgemeine und industrielle Verwaltung. München, Berlin: Oldenbourg.

Franchise Direct (2013) An Introduction to Franchising. Available at: http://www.franchisedirect.co.uk/information/guidetobuyingafranchise/anhistoricalintroductiontofranchising/52/349/ (Accessed: 23 September 2013).

Franchise PORTAL (2011) Gastronomie-Franchise-System Vapiano: Führungswechsel und bald 100 Standorte. Available at: http://www.franchiseportal.de/franchise-franchising/Article/ID/51/Session/1-ai7bwP5t-0-IP/guidObject/008585-20110922-103130-01/KompletteMeldung.htm (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Garg, V. K., Rasheed, A. A. and Priem, R. L. (2005) 'Explaining franchisors’ choices of organization forms within franchise systems', Strategic Organization, 3(2), pp. 185-217.

Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donelly., J. H. J. and Komopaske, R. (2012) Organizations -Behavior, Structure, Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gómez, R., González, I. and Vázquez, L. (2010) 'Multi-unit versus single-unit franchising: assessing why franchisors use different ownership strategies', The Service Industries Journal, 30(3), pp. 463-476.

Goodnight, R. (2004) 'Laissez-Faire Leadership', in Encyclopedia of Leadership SAGE Publications.

Grünhagen, M. and Mittelstaedt, R. A. (2000) 'Single-Unit vs. Multi-Unit Franchising: History, Typology, and the Franchise Perspective', 14th Annual International Society of Franchising February 19-20. pp. 1-11.

Grünhagen, M. and Mittelstaedt, R. A. (2002) 'Is bigger better?: The anticipation of scale efficiencies and decision participation as motivations for aspiring multi-unit franchisees', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 8(3), pp. 188-200.

Grünhagen, M. and Mittelstaedt, R. A. (2005) 'Entrepreneurs or Investors: Do Multi‐unit Franchisees Have Different Philosophical Orientations?', Journal of Small Business Management, 43(3), pp. 207-225.


53

Hussain, D. and Windsperger, J. (2010) 'Multi-Unit Ownership Strategy in Franchising: Development of an Integrative Model', Journal of Marketing Channels, 17(1), pp. 3-31.

Ipe, M. (2003) 'Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework', Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), pp. 337-359.

Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976) 'Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency costs and Ownership Structure', Journal of Financial Economics, 3(3), pp. 305-360.

Joey's (2012) Geschäftsmodell. Available at: http://www.joeys.de/franchise/konzept/geschaeftsmodell (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Jones, P. (1999) 'Multi-unit management in the hospitality industry: a late twentieth century phenomenon', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11(4), pp. 155-164.

Kalnins, A. and Lafontaine, F. (2004) 'Multi-unit ownership in franchising: Evidence from the fast-food industry in Texas', RAND Journal of Economics, pp. 747-761.

Kalnins, A. and Mayer, K. J. (2004) 'Franchising, Ownership, and Experience: A Study of Pizza Restaurant Survival', Management Science, 50(12), pp. 1716-1728.

Kaufmann, P. J. and Dant, R. (1996) 'Multi-unit franchising: Growth and management issues', Journal of Business Venturing, 11(5), pp. 343-358.

Kaufmann, P. J. and Eroglu, S. (1999) 'Standardization and adaptation in business format franchising', Journal of Business Venturing, 14(1), pp. 69-85.

KFC (2013a) FAQ. Available at: http://www.kfc.de/faq#faq01 (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

KFC (2013b) Unser Erfolgsrezept hat Geschichte. Available at: http://www.kfc.de/history (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Lawrence, B. and Kaufmann, P. J. (2011) ' Identity in Franchise Systems: The Role of Franchisee Associations', Journal of Retailing, 87(3), pp. 285-305.

Loten, A. (2012) 'The Big Get Bigger - When awarding new outlets, restaurant chains are giving preference to franchisees who already own a bunch', The Wall Street Journal edn), 18 May 2012. [Online] Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577370431589231276.html#.

Luo, Y. (2005) 'Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries', Journal of World Business, 40(1), pp. 71-90.

Martinez, J. I. and Jarillo, J. C. (1989) 'The evolution of research on coordination mechanisms in multinational corporations', Journal of International Business Studies, pp. 489-514.

McDonald's (2013) Über Uns - Das Unternehmen. Available at: http://www.mcdonalds.de/uber-uns/das-unternehmen (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Moderegger, H. A. (1996) Personalentlohnung und monetäres Anreizsystem. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Nicolai, C. (2009) Betriebliche Organisation. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius Verlagsgesellschaft.

Nohria, N. and Ghoshal, S. (1994) 'Differentiated fit and shared values: Alternatives for managing headquarters‐subsidiary relations', Strategic Management Journal, 15(6), pp. 491-502.


54

Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996) 'Leveraging intellect', The Academy of Management Executive, 19(4), pp. 78-94.

Rothwell, W. J. (2010) Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within. New York: American Management Association.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods For Business Students.

Sorenson, O. and Sørensen, J. B. (2001) ' Finding the right mix: Franchising, organizational learning, and chain performance', Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), pp. 713-724.

Subway (2013) Über Subway - Deutschland. Available at: http://www.subway-sandwiches.de/unternehmen/subway-auf-einen-blick/deutschland.html, (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Thomas, A. B. (2004) Research skills for management studies. Routledge Chapman & Hall.

Thompson, J. D., Scott, W. R. and Zald, M. N. (2003) Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tsai, W. (2002) 'Social Structure of “coopetition”Wwithin a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing', Organization Science, 13(2), pp. 179-190.

Umbreit, W. T. (1989) 'Multi-Unit Management: Managing at a Distance', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 30(1), pp. 52-59.

Vapiano (n.d.) Unsere Geschichte. Available at: http://de.vapiano.com/de/ueber-uns/philosophie/ (Accessed: 3 November 2013).

Vázquez, L. (2008) 'Complementarities between franchise contract duration and multi-unit propensity in franchise systems', The Service Industries Journal, 28(8), pp. 1093-1105.

Weaven, S. (2009) 'An Empirical Examination of the Reasons Governing Multiple Unit Franchise Adoption in Australia', Asian Journal of Marketing, 3(2), pp. 52-64.

Weaven, S. and Frazer, L. (2006) 'Investment incentives for single and multiple unit franchisees', Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(3), pp. 225-242.

Weaven, S. and Frazer, L. (2007a) 'Expansion Through Multiple Unit Franchising - Australian Franchisors Reveal their Motivations', International Small Business Journal, 25(2), pp. 173-205.

Weaven, S. and Frazer, L. (2007b) 'Mature franchise systems use multiple unit franchising to leverage learning economies and sustain systemwide growth', Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(2), pp. 107-126.

Webber, R. (2013) 'An Introduction to Franchising'. Palgrave Macmillan.

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising Appendix 1

55

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Interview Schedule for semi-structured interviews regarding the research topic

‘Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising’

1. Introduction

• How many units do you own from which franchise system?

• In which sequence and when did you acquire them?

• Did you intent to become a multi-unit franchisee from the beginning?

• Did you have previous experience in franchising?

• Are your units located close to each other?

• In which aspects do your units differ (location, employees, customers etc.)?

2. Main Interview

2.1. Organisational Configuration

• How is the company structure/organisational chart? What are your different management

layers?

• Why did you design your company structure like this (motives & reasons)?

• Why do you employ unit managers/area managers etc. (motives & reasons for every

management layer)?

• Did anybody advice you on how to best manage multiple units?

• How are the reporting structures within the company?

• Is there a clear structure who reports to whom within your business?

• How do you ensure that managers act in your interest (principal-agent problem)?

• How much are you still involved in the day-to-day business?

• How would you describe your management style and did it change with the growth of the

business or over time?

(a) In case of multi-unit management alone

• Why did you decide to manage the business on your own?

• What are your main tasks and responsibilities?

• How do you decide how much time you spend on which tasks?

• Do your employees have more tasks and responsibilities with a growth of the multi-unit

business?

• How did your tasks and responsibilities change with a growth of the multi-unit business?


56

(b) In case of multi-unit management with the help of unit managers

• Was it a deliberate decision to manage the several units with the help of unit managers?/ Why

did you employ unit managers?

• When did you first employ unit managers (how many units owned)?

• How many units are the unit managers responsible for and why?

• Why did you choose these unit managers?

• What are the main tasks and responsibilities of the unit managers?

• How high is the autonomy of the unit managers and why?

• How do you/the unit managers decide how much time they spend on which tasks?

• Do you think the organisational structure you chose is the right one?

(c) In case of multi-unit management with the help of operations managers

• Was it a deliberate decision to manage the several units with the help of operations managers?/

Why did you employ operations managers?

• When did you first employ operations managers (how many units owned)?

• How many units are the operations managers responsible for and why?

• Why did you choose these operations managers?

• What are the main tasks and responsibilities of the operations managers?

• How high is the autonomy of the operations managers and why?

• How do you/the operations managers decide how much time they spend on which tasks?

• Do you think the organisational structure you chose is the right one?

(d) Other management layers

• Which other managers do you employ and why (motives & reasons)?

• Why did you choose these managers?

• What are the main tasks and responsibilities of the managers?

• How high is the autonomy of the managers and why?

2.2. Knowledge Sharing

• Is there knowledge sharing between the different franchise units?

• Do the unit managers talk to each other on a regular basis?

• Do the operations managers talk to each other on a regular basis?

• In which forms is knowledge shared?

• Is there knowledge sharing on a formal level and why?

• Do your employees communicate informally without your involvement and why?

• What topics do your employees discuss when talking to each other informally?


57


• How high would you describe the level of standardisation imposed by the franchisor?

• What did you standardize within your business independent from the already imposed

standardisation of the franchisor?

2.4. Centralisation/Decentralisation

• Which tasks did you centralise within your multi-unit business (meaning performed by the

franchisee)

• What is the reason for the centralisation of these tasks?

• Which tasks did you decentralise within your multi-unit business (meaning performed by, for

example, unit managers, operations managers)?

• What is the reason for the decentralisation of these tasks?


58

APPENDIX 2: INFORMATION SHEET

Organizational and operational management

and its motives and reasons within multi-unit franchising

Participant Information Sheet

INVITATION

You are invited to take part in a research study which is conducted as part of a master thesis project

by a postgraduate student from Newcastle University Business School and Rijksuniversiteit

Groningen. Before you decide to participate in this research study it is important for you to

understand why this study is being done and what it will involve. Please take your time to read the

following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if

you would like more information. Thank you for reading this.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This research study attempts to investigate how multi‐unit franchisees manage and organize their

multiple units and what the motives for this kind of management are.

RESEARCH PROCESS

If you decide to take part in this research, you will be interviewed from a researcher. The interview

will take from 30 to 60 minutes. The questions will attempt to investigate how the participating

multi‐unit franchisee manages and organizes the several units. The whole interview process will be

recorded, and records will be used as research data.

EXCURSION CRITERIA

The focus on this research is on multi‐unit franchisees owning at least two units within one franchise

system. Given this, you would not be able to participate if you do not fit in the above criteria.

Newcastle University

Business School

5 Barrack Road

Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4SE, England

Study Supervisor: Prof. Markus Blut

E‐mail: [email protected]

Phone: +44‐19 12 08 17 07

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Nettelbosje 2

9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands

Study Supervisor: Henk Ritsema


Phone: +31‐503 63 38 44

Researcher: Maren Overmann


Phone: +49‐178 712 33 43


59

BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATION

As your participation in this study is voluntary, the collection of data for this study will not benefit

you directly, but it is of great importance for this research study.

PARTICIPANT'S RIGHTS

Your participation in this study is voluntary and it is up to you to decide whether or not to take part.

If you decide to join this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form; you will be given a copy of

this to keep. However, you will still be free to withdraw from the study at any time without prejudice

and without giving a reason. In the event of a withdrawal, you have the right to ask that any data

provided to that point, will be excluded from the research or/and destroyed.

You have the right to omit or refuse to answer or respond to any question that is asked to you.

COMPLAINTS

In case of any complaints, you can contact either the researcher (Maren Overmann) or one of the

two study supervisors (Henk Ritsema and Markus Blut).

CONFIDENTIALITY/ANONYMITY

All information about your participation in this study will be kept confidential. Only the researcher

and the supervisors will have access to the data. Other researchers will have access to this data only

if they agree to preserve the confidentiality of the data and if they agree to the terms specified in this

form and the consent form. According to your wishes, the gained data can be used openly or can be

anonymised. If the data is used openly, your name will be used and what you have said or written as

part of this study will be used in reports, publications and other research outputs so that anything

you have contributed to this project can be recognised. If the data is anonymised, your name will not

be used in the context of the study.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The results of this study will be used for academic reasons and for the completion of a master thesis.

If you want to find out about the final results of this study, please contact the researcher or the

student supervisors.

Thank you for taking time to read this information.


60

APPENDIX 3: CONSENT FORM

I, the undersigned, confirm that (please tick box as appropriate):

1. I have read and understood the information about the project, as provided in the

Information Sheet dated XX.XX 2013.

�

2. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions about the project and my

participation.

�

3. I voluntarily agree to participate in the project.

�

4. I understand I can withdraw at any time without giving reasons and that I will not be

penalised for withdrawing nor will I be questioned on why I have withdrawn.

�

5. The procedures regarding confidentiality have been clearly explained (e.g. use of

names, pseudonyms, anonymisation of data, etc.) to me.

�

6. I understand that the interview will be audio‐recorded and agree to it.

�

7. The use of the data in research, publications, sharing and archiving has been explained

to me.

�

8. I understand that other researchers will have access to this data only if they agree to

preserve the confidentiality of the data and if they agree to the terms I have specified

in this form.

�

9. Select only one of the following:

• I would like my name used and understand what I have said or written as part

of this study will be used in reports, publications and other research outputs so

that anything I have contributed to this project can be recognised.

• I do not want my name used in this project.

�

�

10. I, along with the Researcher, agree to sign and date this informed consent form.

�

Participant:

________________________ ___________________________ ________________

Name of Participant Signature Date

Researcher:

________________________ ___________________________ ________________

Name of Researcher Signature Date


61

APPENDIX 4: SAMPLE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Interview X, Multi-Unit Franchisenehmer Vapiano

F – Multi-Unit Franchisenehmer

I – Interviewer

I: Dann fange ich einfach mal an. Sie sind Multi-Unit Franchisenehmer von Vapiano.

F: Genau.

I: Wie viele Geschäfte haben Sie?

F: Drei. Münster, Osnabrück und Bielefeld.

I: Ok. Wann haben Sie diese Geschäfte eröffnet?

F: Münster habe ich im März 2007 eröffnet, Osnabrück im August 2009 und Bielefeld letztes Jahr im November.

I: Ok. Die haben Sie auch alle selbst eröffnet, also nicht gekauft sondern selbst eröffnet?

F: Alles Neueröffnungen.

I: Ok. War das von Anfang an der Plan, dass Sie mehrere haben?

F: Also mein Plan war es schon mehrere zu machen, aber Vapiano vergibt in Deutschland ja nur Einzelfranchisegeschäfte. Und beurteilt natürlich immer, ich sage mal, anhand der Leistungen, die sie selber bringen fürs System usw. ob sie da noch in der Lage sind, ein zweites oder eventuell auch ein drittes Restaurant zu eröffnen.

I: Ok. Dann zum Aufbau Ihrer Geschäfte. Also als Sie ein Geschäft hatten, haben Sie wahrscheinlich noch selbst Restaurantleitung gemacht, gehe ich mal von aus.

F: Genau.

I: Wie hat sich das jetzt geändert mit dem zweiten und dritten Geschäft?

F: Ja, ich sage mal in dem Moment, wenn du das zweite Geschäft letztendlich auch schon angehen willst, in der Planung bist, musst du dich aus dem anderen Geschäft schon aus der Restaurantleitung zurückziehen, weil die Zeit nicht mehr da ist den Job dann, sage ich mal, mehr oder weniger zu 100% auszufüllen. Also ich sage mal sobald man das Go von der Zentrale kriegt ein zweites Geschäft aufzumachen, so habe ich das zumindest immer gemacht, und für mich sich abzeichnet da tut sich was in einer anderen Stadt, auch flächentechnisch, bin ich sofort daran auch ein zweites Management aufzubauen, so ein Schattenmanagement. Wenn ich das Restaurant eröffne, dass ich im Prinzip sofort ein fertig ausgebildetes Management vor Ort habe. Und dieses Schattenmanagement nimmt mir dann letztendlich auch diese erhöhte Arbeit in dem einen Restaurant ab, was läuft, was ich halt nicht mehr selber betreue.

I: Ok, das heißt Sie haben mit der Zusage des zweiten hier praktisch schon einen Restaurantmanager eingestellt und das gleiche schon während des Aufbaus praktisch für das zweite Geschäft entwickelt.

F: Bei mir ist immer so die Vorlaufzeit für einen Betriebsleiter 6 Monate. Dass ich den 6 Monate lang aufbaue in dem einen bestehenden Restaurant. Und dass er dann quasi in dem Moment, wenn das Restaurant aufmacht, dass er sofort von Tag eins an da auch operativ tätig sein kann und sich nicht mit sich selbst beschäftigt. Das ist ja immer die Gefahr, wenn ein Geschäft neu aufmacht, dass man am Anfang unheimlich viele Fehler macht und da ist es aus meiner Sicht intelligenter man investiert vorher ein bisschen mehr Geld in die Ausbildung, aber ich denke das zahlt sich dann relativ kurzfristig schon wieder aus.

I: Ok, das heißt die werden in einem bestehenden Geschäft eingearbeitet und wissen dann ganz genau, was sie zu tun haben, wenn sie ins Neue kommen.


62

F: Genau.

I: Gibt es noch ein Management dahinter, also hinter dem Restaurantleiter?

F: Ich fahre meine Geschäfte mit einem Betriebsleiter und drei Managern noch, also Schichtführern oder wie auch immer man das auch immer nennt.

I: Ok. Und das war auch im ersten Geschäft, gab es da auch schon unter Ihnen vier Schichtführer?

F: Ja, ich bin mal angefangen mit drei, aber damals war auch noch nicht so klar, sage ich mal, das war ja eins der ersten Vapianos, was in einer etwas kleineren Stadt aufgemacht wurde, das war das 20. Vapiano weltweit und mittlerweile sind wir schon bei über 130. Und damals gabs halt Vapianos immer nur in größeren Städten. Da war man sich überhaupt nicht klar wie läuft das, was machen die für Umsätze und von daher, sage ich mal, habe natürlich auch versucht den Kostenrahmen erstmal so straff wie möglich zu halten. Zum Glück haben wir hier sofort gute Umsätze gemacht, so dass ich dann sage ich mal dann auch schnell aufgestockt habe.

I: Ok. Grundsätzlich als Grund, dass Sie sich am Anfang überlegt haben mit Restaurantleitern zu arbeiten, was war der primäre Grund?

F: Jetzt einen Betriebsleiter überhaupt einzustellen?

I: Mmh.

F: Ich denke mal es macht immer Sinn, wenn ein Geschäft auf zwei gesunden Beinen steht. Letztendlich ist man auch nur Mensch, man kann krank werden, man will sich letztendlich auch auf andere Sachen fokussieren. Und mein primäres Ziel liegt jetzt nicht in der Gewinnmaximierung von Stunde null an, sondern ich betreibe meine Geschäfte langfristig und ich denke da ist es dann auch gut, wenn auch neben dem Inhaber noch ein Betriebsleiter mit vor Ort ist.

I: Gibt es da auch Vorgaben von Vapiano? Also muss man Restaurantleiter haben oder muss jedes Geschäft einen haben?

F: Also es gibt schon so eine Strukturvorgabe von Vapiano. Aber der Restaurantleiter kann ja auch zwingend der Betriebsleiter oder der Franchisenehmer sein vor Ort.

I: Auch wenn es mehrere Geschäfte gibt, also Sie können praktisch von Vapiano aus auch…

F: Also ich kann mich ja dauerhaft auch hier als Betriebsleiter in Münster etablieren, sage ich jetzt mal. Und hier einfach einen Stellvertreter installieren auf dem Papier. Aber ich denke das macht langfristig, macht das keinen Sinn.

I: Ok, aber Sie können jetzt nicht gleichzeitig in Osnabrück und in Münster….

F: Könnten könnte ich alles. Aber es macht keinen Sinn sage ich mir. Das ist so.

I: Aber denken Sie, dass ein Geschäft führen schon ein Vollzeitjob ist?

F: Ja.

I: Also Sie könnten gar nicht….

F: Also ich sage mal, als Beispiel: Ich habe ja früher auch bei McDonalds gearbeitet, ich komme aus der McDonalds Schiene. Und Vapiano ist schon ne Nummer härter noch, weil Sie einfach eine andere Restaurantgröße haben. Und bedingt dadurch, dass wir ja eine eigene Produktion im Haus haben, ja, wir machen ja alles selber, wir machen die Nudeln selber, wir machen den Teig selber, wir machen alle Soßen, alle Dressings, wir schneiden das Gemüse vor Ort klein. Das heißt Sie haben auch einen erhöhten Personalbedarf. Ich sage mal so eine durchschnittliche McDonalds Filiale fahren Sie mit 40 Mitarbeitern, ich habe hier in Münster 110. So, und dann wissen Sie, was ein Betriebsleiter zu tun hat. 90% seiner Zeit ist er irgendwie mit People beschäftigt.

I: Ja. Wie viele Vapiano Franchisenehmer gibt es denn eigentlich, die mehrere haben? Haben das viele?

F: Also es gibt schon in Deutschland… Also im Ausland werden ja sowieso Länderfranchise vergeben. Da hat man natürlich, sage ich jetzt mal, sobald ein zweites aufmacht, sind das Multi-


63

Franchisenehmer. In Deutschland war es lange so, dass erstmal die Franchisenehmer einzelne Geschäfte hatten. Aber mit der zunehmenden Expansion und ich sage mal so ab 2009 fing es an, dass die ersten Franchisenehmer ein zweites Geschäft hatten.

I: Ok. Gibt es denn welche, die viel mehr als drei haben?

F: Nein.

I: Also drei ist schon so das….

F: Ich bin der, der drei hat.

I: Sie sind der Größte.

F: Ich bin der Größte.

I: Ok, ja. Das macht ja auch Sinn, wenn man mal so ein bisschen vergleicht. Bei McDonalds ist es ja eigentlich alles sehr…

F: Na gut, aber ich sage mal, Vapiano hat in Deutschland knapp über 60 Geschäfte und McDonalds hat ich glaube mittlerweile 1300 irgendwas. So, da ist natürlich die Chance, dass Sie mehrere Geschäfte als Franchisenehmer haben durchweg gegeben.

I: Ja, das stimmt.

F: Auch bedingt dadurch, dass Sie ganz andere Restauranttypen haben. Also wenn Sie in so einer Stadt wie Münster sind, sage ich mal haben Sie die Möglichkeit also Expresse zu machen, im Bahnhof, in irgendwelchen Shoppingcentern. Und das gibt es bei Vapiano ja noch alles gar nicht. Wird mit Sicherheit irgendwann mal kommen. So wie ein Freestander kommen wird bei Vapiano, so wird dann auch irgendwann, wenn man sage ich mal seine Sache ausexpandiert hat, dann wird die Zentrale sich ja irgendwann mal überlegen: wir wollen ja weiterwachsen, wo gibt es Möglichkeiten. So, und dann muss man halt in kleine Regionen jetzt gehen oder sich was überlegen.

I: Ja. Ja, ich habe bei McDonalds auch schon gelernt, dass ist es glaube ich einfacher wenn McDonalds glaube ich mal ein paar Geschäfte loswerden möchte, dann suchen die sich glaube ich einfach immer einen, der das einfach übernimmt. So geht das ein bisschen schneller.

F: Ja gut, 1992 bin ich mal angefangen bei McDonalds. Das war gerade Restaurant Nummer 400, was da eröffnet hat. So, und dann hatten die wirklich stark expandiert in der Zeit nur mit Franchisenehmern. Und das war natürlich auch so eine Zeit da kam die Mauereröffnung und die Geschäfte florierten alle weil die Wirtschaft lief und…. Dann hat McDonalds irgendwann mal gesagt: wir machen jetzt alles selber. So, haben dann unheimlich viele Geschäfte selber aufgemacht. Nur McDonalds ist der bessere Franchisegeber, aber nicht der bessere Restaurantbetreiber. So, und als sie dann gemerkt haben, dass sie selber schwerlich Geld verdienen und operative Probleme haben in ihren Restaurants, haben Sie dann wirklich ganz viele Restaurants auch wieder verkauft an Franchisenehmer.

I: Ok. Nochmal zum Aufbau zurück. Also Sie haben vier Manager, darüber haben Sie einen Restaurantleiter, darüber stehen Sie. Werden Sie noch von irgendjemandem unterstützt? Also, Verwaltung, oder haben Sie so etwas wie bei McDonalds immer gerne, einen Bezirksleiter.

F: Ja gut, Sie werden ja betreut, so nennt man das ja immer von dem Franchisegeber. Das ist ja eigentlich in jedem System genauso. Der Betreuer kommt in unregelmäßigen Abständen vorbei. Der hat auch eine Kontrollfunktion wo er bestimmte Sachen kontrollieren muss. Also Vorgaben des Franchisegebers ob die eingehalten werden. So Standard, Haltbarkeitsdaten, Sauberkeit. Dann gibt es angekündigte Besuche einmal im Jahr, wo so ein Zwei-Tages-Audit gemacht wird. Das ist eigentlich auch gängig in allen Systemen. Wo die bestimmten Vorgaben wieder abgeprüft werden, wo Sie dann letztendlich auch als Franchisenehmer beurteilt werden mit solchen Sachen. Sie haben unregelmäßige Besuche von einem externen Institut, wo Sie halt aus Sicht des Gastes gecheckt werden und Infos kriegen.

I: Ok. Aber ansonsten machen Sie noch alles selbst? Also die ganze Verwaltung für alle drei Geschäfte machen Sie noch?


64

F: Also ich sage mal ich habe die Oberkoordination in der Hand und ich gucke, dass überall alles läuft. Aber meine Buchhaltung und mein Personalwesen habe ich ausgelagert. Also Lohnabrechnungen etc.

I: Ok. Das heißt Sie haben dann einen Steuerberater und…. Ok.

F: Ich sage mal wir machen alles hier fertig und schicken es dann letztendlich zur Endfinalabrechnung weg. Ich sage mal alle Rechnungen laufen über meinen Schreibtisch und werden freigegeben und gehen zum Steuerberater halt zum Kontieren und Verbuchen. Und bei den Lohnabrechnungen ist es, ich sage jetzt mal, Sie haben eine Lohnübersicht, am Monatsende werden die ganzen Löhne eingetragen, Urlaub eingetragen und Krankentage eingetragen und Nachtzuschläge eingetragen und der Steuerberater sage ich mal macht das dann letztendlich diese aufbereitete Datevform und zahlt dann die Löhne letztendlich oder bereitet alles vor und ich zahle aus.

I: Wie weit ist denn der Verantwortungsbereich von den Restaurantleitern?

F: Also die Restaurantleiter sage ich mal sind sage ich jetzt mal im Groben und Ganzen für den täglichen Ablauf des Geschäfts verantwortlich, sind verantwortlich für den Dienstplan, letztendlich auch die daraus entstehenden Kosten. Und Training. Also Materialeinsatz, Wareneinsatz. Ich sage mal, dass sind ja die beiden größten Blöcke im Restaurant, Personalkosten und Materialeinsatz. So, wir machen ja für jedes Restaurant ein Budget. So, und anhand des Budgets kann der Betriebsleiter sage ich mal gucken, wie sind seine Kosten im Vergleich zum Budget. So, da sollte er sich natürlich idealerweise sage ich mal dran halten. Das sind jetzt auch keine utopischen Werte, sondern es sind ja Erfahrungswerte, das sind Werte die aus der Vergangenheit herrühren. Das sind Werte, wo ich weiß, wenn ich jetzt… Als Beispiel, wir hatten jetzt im Juni eine Tariferhöhung. So, wenn ich ein Budget mache, muss ich natürlich ab Juni erhöhte Personalkosten einplanen, wenn ich keine Preiserhöhung in der Zwischenzeit mache. So, und das sind ja Sachen, die dann auch wirklich so geplant werden und wo der Betriebsleiter sich dann dran halten muss und letztendlich auch messen lassen muss. Weil ein Betriebsleiter kriegt ein Gehalt und er kriegt auch eine Bonifizierung. Und die Bonifizierung hängt natürlich letztendlich von dem Betriebsergebnis ab, was er selber auch erzielt. Und meine Arbeit ist es, sage ich mal, zu gucken, dass die Betriebsleiter auch in die Richtung laufen. Das wir sage ich mal betriebswirtschaftlich erfolgreich sind. Weil ich sehe meine Arbeit darin die sage ich jetzt mal diese drei Betriebe zu führen, die Betriebsergebnisse jeden Monat, wir machen ja monatliche Betriebsauswertungen, und anhand der Betriebsauswertung eventuell Maßnahmen im Restaurant mit anzuschieben. Damit es nicht in die falsche Richtung läuft.

I: Ok. Das heißt Sie machen praktisch die Budgetpläne, geben die weiter und die Restaurantleiter schauen, dass das auch alles entsprechend läuft.

F Genau.

I: Wie läuft das denn mit den Mitarbeitern, wer stellt denn zum Beispiel die Mitarbeiter ein?

F: Der Betriebsleiter. Alle Betriebsleiter bei mir sind leitende Angestellte und kriegen damit auch die Vollmacht Mitarbeiter ein- und auch wieder auszustellen.

I: Auch für Ihre Schichtführer oder…?

F: Ne, das mache ich selber.

I: Das machen Sie….

F: Management stelle ich ein und der Betriebsleiter stellt alle normalen gewerblichen Mitarbeiter ein. Aber ich sage jetzt mal, wenn es jetzt darum geht im laufenden Betrieb – im neuen Betrieb ist es noch ein bisschen was anderes – aber wenn ich jetzt einen Betrieb, zum Beispiel Bielefeld, so, und da ist jetzt so der Fall, da würde jetzt einer ausscheiden aus dem Management. Weil entweder wir nicht mit ihm zufrieden sind oder weil er mit uns nicht zufrieden ist oder weil er vielleicht umzieht, es gibt ja verschiedenste Möglichkeiten. So, und dann hat der Betriebsleiter natürlich vor Ort immer das Recht jemanden vorzuschlagen. Weil ich rekrutiere gerne auch aus eigenen Mitarbeitern. Und Sie haben durchweg eigentlich bei der Menge an Mitarbeitern im Restaurant immer einen dabei, der so das Potenzial hat in die Richtung zu gehen. Und dann können Sie mit dem Mitarbeiter reden. Und wenn der das will und wir das wollen, dann kann da auch die Ausbildung starten.


65

I: Ok. Das heißt Aufgabengebiet des Betriebsleiters ist es hauptsächlich: Personal im Sinne von Training, Einstellen, Führen.

F: Einstellen, Ausstellen, Führen, Beurteilen, Urlaubsplanung, also alles was mit Personal zu tun hat, macht der selber.

I: Ok. Und dann natürlich zusätzlich der ganze Materialeinsatz…

F: Warenbestellungen, ich sage jetzt mal normale Reparaturen anleiern bis zu einem bestimmten Wert. Ich sage mal bis zu 1.000 Euro darf der alles selber beauftragen. Wenn es jetzt eine größere Reparatur ist, dann möchte ich schon mitentscheiden, ob man das vielleicht gar nicht repariert, sondern vielleicht eventuell austauscht das Teil. So, manchmal macht es Sinn, Sachen lieber auszutauschen anstatt die immer teuer zu reparieren. Da gibt es ja immer… wir machen für jedes Gerät so eine Historie und dann kann man sehen: Mensch, was ist in das Gerät schon an Reparaturen geflossen. Und irgendwann müssen Sie einfach feststellen, dass das Gerät einfach immer so ein ich sage mal permanenten Reparaturbedarf hat, dass es eigentlich sinnvoller ist, das Gerät mal auszutauschen. Dann haben Sie wieder eine Garantiezeit und erkaufen sich dann so eine andere Zeit.

I: Ok. Und wie würden Sie Ihr Aufgabengebiet beschreiben?

F: Also meine Aufgabe ist es, ich sage mal mehr oder weniger für die Betriebsleiter da zu sein. Also Unterstützer. Gucken, dass wir die wirtschaftlichen Ziele, die wir uns gesetzt haben, zu erreichen. Und ich denke ein großer Teil meiner Arbeit ist auch, dass ich mich in den Städten positioniere, politisch da ein bisschen was bewege und mich so mit Meinungsführern der Gemeinde treffe und auch für meine Gäste vor Ort da zu sein.

I: Das heißt Sie sind auch richtig noch in den Geschäften?

F: Ja ja. Ganz wirklich.

I: Das heißt Sie sind dann auch jede Woche in jedem Geschäft mindestens einen Tag oder…? Gibt es sowas wie feste Regeln?

F: Ich sage mal…. Ich wohne hier in Münster, das ist meine Hauptbasis. Ich bin hier sage ich mal 60% meiner Zeit ungefähr oder 50%. Und den Rest der Zeit bin ich in den beiden anderen Geschäften.

I: Ok. Und das heißt Sie schauen dann so ein bisschen was die Mitarbeiter machen und wo man ein bisschen was verbessern könnte…?

F: Ja immer mal ich sage mal unregelmäßig vorbeikommen, letztendlich ja auch Kontrollbesuche machen, um zu gucken wie läufts. Wenn ich jetzt quasi aus Sicht des Gastes reinkomme, ich bin ja ein ganz normaler Gast in dem Moment wenn ich da zu einer Uhrzeit reinkomme und dann kann ich ja gucken: Mensch, wie sind die besetzt, ist das Restaurant sauber, um da auch mal wieder noch Feedback zu geben. Und ich denke das ist das A und O.

I: Ok. Thema Marketing. Können Sie da viel selbst machen von Vapiano aus?

F: Also Vapiano selber macht ja kein eigenes großes Marketing. Wir haben keine Radiowerbung, keine Fernsehwerbung. Vapiano versucht viel über diese neuen Medien zu machen. Und vor Ort mache ich schon relativ viel.

I: Das machen Sie auch selbst?

F: Genau, das mache ich selber in allen Filialen. Da guckt man immer, dass man Partner findet vor Ort, die auch zu einem passen von der Zielgruppe her. Und ich habe eigentlich in jeder Stadt gute Kooperationspartner mit denen ich auch ja eigentlich relativ lange zusammenarbeite. Wie Kino oder Optiker oder Autohäuser, wo man so eine gleiche Klientel anspricht. Wo man auch mal gute Aktionen machen kann. Und wo sich letztendlich beide dann auch wiederfinden. Weil Vapiano hat denke ich schon so eine gewisse Qualität und die muss ich dann auch in den Marketingmaßnahmen wiederspiegeln. Weil wir sind jetzt nicht der, der 50% Rabatt auf alles gibt oder 2 für 1 macht. Wir punkten mit unserer Qualität, mit der Zufriedenheit der Gäste und ich denke das sollte unsere Marketingstrategie sein.


66

I: Und für den Bereich Finanzen, da haben Sie ja schon gesagt, das machen Sie mit Unterstützung des Steuerberaters, das heißt der Restaurantleiter und so haben eigentlich gar nichts damit zu tun.

F: Also mit den Sachen eigentlich nicht. Ich sage mal die kriegen natürlich schon die Zahlen hinterher von mir mitgeteilt, damit die natürlich letztendlich auch wissen wo sie stehen oder wo sie was besser machen können oder teilweise auch schon überdrehen. Es gibt ja auch immer den gegenteiligen Effekt, dass man sagt: Mensch, meine Personalkosten sollten bei X% liegen und die liegen drunter. Das ist auch nicht gesund. Da haben Sie zwar im Moment vielleicht mehr Geld verdient, aber langfristig ist das auch nicht gut. Weil das schadet irgendwo dem Service. Und ich möchte auch irgendwo eine vernünftige Balance finden. Genau das gleiche bei den Food Costs. Wenn ich eine Soll-Food-Cost habe… so, und ich liege drüber, ist es schlecht für mich. So, der Gast merkt es nicht mal richtig, dass er jetzt mehr bekommen hat. Auch nicht gut. Aber noch schlimmer ist, wenn ich drunter liege. Dann könnte ich für mich ja sagen: oh toll, meine Food Cost ist relativ niedrig. Eigentlich noch niedriger als sie sein soll. Aber ich denke langfristig, der Gast ist nicht blöd. Der hat nichts im Teller drin und wird sagen: Ey, früher war der Salat mal so, heute ist er so, und morgen so. Dieser klassische Effekt. Und das trägt auch nicht zur Zufriedenheit des Gastes bei.

I: Ja. Sprechen Sie denn auch mit anderen Multi-Unit Franchisenehmern und tauschen sich so ein bisschen aus, auch was den Aufbau angeht, wie Sie das zum Beispiel händeln?

F: Also wir haben eine relativ offene Kommunikation bei Vapiano. Wir kennen alle unsere Umsätze, unsere Personalkosten. Wir haben so ein Tool wo wir unsere Kosten auch offenlegen, wo Sie dann letztendlich wissen, wo Sie sich selbst befinden. Und dann ich sage mal liegt es natürlich an jedem einzelnen selber. Ich habe Kontakt zu zwei Kollegen relativ intensiv, die auch von der Stadtgröße ähnlich gelagert sind.

I: Und die haben auch mehrere Geschäfte?

F: Ja.

I: Und die machen das auch mit dem Aufbau, mit der Organisationsstruktur so wie Sie?

F: Ähnlich sage ich mal. Jeder findet natürlich irgendwo seinen eigenen Weg sage ich mal. Und da muss jeder natürlich für sich selbst entscheiden wie er was macht. Aber ich sage jetzt mal so Food Costs usw. können Sie natürlich trotzdem vergleichen wo Sie da liegen.

I: Ja. Aber die arbeiten auch nicht irgendwie mit Bezirksleitern oder sowas? Die haben also vom Aufbau ist das ähnlich wie bei Ihnen. Oder gibt es da unterschiedliche Modelle?

F: Ne.

I: Ok. Dann Thema Standardisierung. Würden Sie sagen, dass Vapiano selbst schon einen hohen Grad an Standardisierung hat? Ich meine Sie kennen ja jetzt das Beispiel McDonalds, da ist es ja sehr sehr sehr hoch.

F: Ja. Also ich sage mal, die haben schon einen relativ hohen Grad an Standardisierung. Aber es ist ich sage mal für den Franchisenehmer vor Ort deutlich schwieriger das durchzusetzen als jetzt bei McDonalds. Hat natürlich was damit zu tun, dass wir ich glaube das fünffache an Artikeln haben, weil wir halt mit Frische arbeiten. So, und bei McDonalds haben Sie wirklich die Soße in so einer Pistole, kennen Sie ja, da wird ja zweimal geschossen. So, und wenn der Spender ok ist, haben Sie genau die Menge Soße drauf, die drauf soll. Hier arbeiten Sie mit Menschen, die mit irgendwelchen Schäufelchen arbeiten und da ist so ein bisschen auch das Gefühl des Mitarbeiters spielt da immer mit. Es gibt ganz klare Vorgaben von Vapiano. Wie viel Gramm Zwiebeln in das Gericht kommen und wieviel Gramm Paprika reinkommen. Aber ich sage mal die Fehlertoleranz ist natürlich hier deutlich höher als bei McDonalds als Beispiel. Die Vorgaben sind ganz klar da für alles. Also alles ist im Prinzip vorgegeben. Nur sage ich mal die Umsetzung vor Ort ist schon deutlich schwieriger. Ist so.

I: ja, das stimmt. Ja, wenn da jemand steht und kocht….

F: Das fängt an… Ich sage mal so, Sie kochen. So, und dann müssen Sie hinterher Salz reinmachen. So, Sie haben da ein Salztöpfchen stehen, der eine hat breite Finger, der andere hat schmale Finger, der eine isst selber gerne salzig, der andere nicht so salzig, So, und das ist dann natürlich auch dann…


67

Das Ergebnis des Kochens schmeckt nie 100% gleich bei Vapiano. Obwohl es ganz klare Vorgaben gibt.

I: Aber es schmeckt immer ähnlich.

F: Ja, soll ja auch so sein. Nur so im Gefühl ist es einfach deutlich schwieriger. Die Vorgaben sind ganz klar da. Ohne Vorgaben wäre es ja total chaotisch. Nur dann letztendlich die Umsetzung vor Ort ist deutlich schwieriger und ich sage mal bedarf eines deutlich höheren Trainingsaufwands bei Vapiano. Also da ist man bei McDonalds schon deutlich einfacher strukturiert. Weil das Produktportfolio kleiner ist, die Sachen einfacher zu händeln sind, weil einfach alles fertig ist. Und hier ist einfach so eine Sache halt, das ist frisch. Das fängt hinten an, wenn der die Grundsoße kocht, Bolognese. Kocht der die 10 Minuten länger oder kürzer. Das spiegelt sich schon in der Konsistenz der Bolognesemasse wieder. Das trägt natürlich dann auch schon vorne dazu bei, ist die Masse fester oder flüssiger. Einfach schwieriger, deutlich schwieriger.

I: Gibt es denn Sachen die Sie, also unabhängig von den Vorgaben von Vapiano jetzt, noch standardisiert haben, weil Sie gemerkt haben mit dem zweiten oder dritten Geschäft da sollte man Standards einführen?

F: Also ich sage mal so, man findet vor Ort schon so bestimmte Tools, will ich die mal so benennen, die haben das Arbeiten erleichtert. Von Vapiano kommen einfach sage ich mal Standardvorgaben was die Rezepturen betrifft hauptsächlich und solche Sachen. Mindesthaltbarkeitsdaten. So, was von Vapiano natürlich nicht geleistet werden kann sage ich mal sind zum Beispiel Lagerordnungen. Wie befülle ich ein Lager, habe ich irgendwelche Auffülllisten. Oder wie strukturiere ich meinen Betrieb. So, da sage ich mal werden wirklich mit jedem Geschäft professioneller, wo Sie einfach sagen können, Mensch, ich gestalte meine Läger so und so und dann gibt es irgendwelche Pläne wie was wo im Lager steht. Wieviel Sachen da reingehören. Und das sind einfach Sachen, die Sie einfach vor Ort als Unternehmer leisten können, wo Sie sich dann einfach selber organisieren können und wo Sie es letztendlich auch dem Management und dem einzelnen Mitarbeiter deutlich leichter machen. Sie ersparen sich viele Laufwege. Sie ersparen sich durch eine vernünftige Lagerhaltung durch ein vernünftiges FIFO Abfallkosten. Und das sage ich mal können Sie einfach vor Ort viel besser leisten. Gerade wenn Sie in die Expansion gehen. Wenn Sie ein neues Geschäft machen als Neuling sage ich jetzt mal, da läuft viel chaotisch. Trotz natürlich Standardvorgaben, aber da ist einfach wie so ein Hühnerhaufen. So, und wenn Sie von Anfang an so eine Grundstruktur schon haben in einem Restaurant, dass Sie da alles geordnet haben, dass der Mitarbeiter so Hilfen einfach hat mit Listen, mit Lagerordnungen und so, da können Sie unheimlich viel Ruhe ins Geschäft bringen. Das bringt wirklich dann die Erfahrung aus dem laufenden Geschäft und Sie werden eigentlich mit jedem Geschäft immer professioneller. Auch wie Sie das Geschäft aufbauen letztendlich. Vom Rückbereich. Da machen Sie sich hinterher wirklich über jedes Regal Gedanken. Ist das Regal an der Stelle wirklich top positioniert. Am Anfang haben Sie gar keine Ahnung davon. Da vertrauen Sie dann sage ich mal mehr auf die Architekten und die Franchisegeber. So, wenn Sie aber im Restaurant sind, werden Sie hinterher feststellen, dass es operativ blöd ist, dass das Lager nicht da ist, sondern da ist. Und dass Sie dann dahinten hinlaufen müssen und dass die Spüle jetzt dasteht, eigentlich wäre sie da viel besser aufgehoben. So, das sehen Sie erst hinterher.

I: Also das sind dann aber auch so Sachen, die Sie frei machen können? Das können Sie sich so einteilen, wie Sie wollen?

F: Genau. Also Sie sind schon ganz frei was die Planung des Restaurants betrifft. Sie müssen natürlich auch da wieder die Standards von Vapiano einhalten. Die dann sagen du musst pro Restaurant mindestens einen Olivenbaum haben, du musst so und so viel Prozent hohe Tische haben, du musst so und so viel Lounge Plätze haben. Also es gibt immer eine Minimumvorgabe, aber innerhalb dieser Vorgaben kann ich mich trotzdem noch ganz variabel bewegen. Ich sage mal, ich kann entscheiden, steht die Bar hier, da, dahinten oder da unten. Kann ich selber entscheiden. Aber ich muss eine Bar haben. Verstehen Sie. So, und an der Bar müssen Sie mindestens eine Kaffeemaschine haben, eine solche Vitrine, eine Eisvitrine, ein Eiswürfelbereiter. Das Minimum muss man immer unterbringen. Ob Sie dann hinterher eine eckige Bar machen, eine runde Bar, eine lange Bar, das können Sie selber. Das ist vom Raum letztendlich auch abhängig. Das ist ja der große Unterschied zwischen McDonalds, die hauptsächlich Freestander haben, wo alles standardisiert ist, wo jeder ich sage jetzt mal `gleich


68

aufgebaut ist`. Da haben Sie vielleicht orange Kissen und da grüne Kissen, aber das Geschäft ist gleich.

I: Ich habe gelernt es gibt 10 Dekostile.

F: Ja. Das kenne ich. Aber trotzdem ist das Restaurant ja in der Bauweise immer gleich. Das eine ist vielleicht ein Stück länger und hat dadurch ein paar Sitzplätze mehr. Aber bei Vapiano, wir haben ja keinen Standardbau. Sie gehen ja immer in irgendwelche gemieteten Lokale rein und da ist ja jede Grundfläche anders. Der eine ist lang, der eine breit, der eine hoch, der andere hat zwei Etagen. Der eine ist breiter als tief und da müssen Sie sich ja den Räumlichkeiten auch anpassen.

I: Ok, das heißt sowas machen Sie dann für jedes Restaurant individuell. Und so Sachen wie: wie mache ich die Küche am besten, ist das dann auch immer individuell oder haben Sie ab dem zweiten gesagt: ich habe in der ersten Küche gemerkt, dass ist so und so am besten, so machen wir es in allen?

F: Sie versuchen natürlich die Fehler oder die Schwächen aus dem ersten Geschäft zu beseitigen, wenn Sie das zweite Restaurant planen.

I: Das heißt bei der Lagerhaltung haben Sie das auch gemacht? Also mit der Öffnung des zweiten haben Sie direkt gesagt: So wird das gemacht?

F: Ja, ja. Da haben Sie eine ganz andere Sicht, sage ich mal, auf Laufwege. Wie bewegt sich jetzt der Mitarbeiter wenn er an der Kochstation ist. So, und dann müssen Sie natürlich immer gucken wie kann ich das in dem Bautyp vor Ort auch unterbringen. Ist ja auch nicht so ganz einfach. Ist ja nicht so, dass der zweite genauso gebaut ist wie dieser hier. Jedes Restaurant ist da anders. Nur Sie können dann wirklich ich sage mal Sie haben erstmal eine Aufgabe wo Sie wissen, das ist nicht optimal, das möchte ich im nächsten Geschäft verbessern und dann müssen Sie halt gucken wie kann ich das verbessern. Das ist halt der Vorteil wenn Sie halt mehrere Geschäft haben, dass Sie dann sage ich mal immer besser werden können. Und letztendlich durch diese ganzen Verbesserungen, die Sie dann hoffentlich auch erreichen können, können Sie natürlich auch Ihre Produktivität steigern. Weil der Mitarbeiter einfach sage ich mal produktiver ist. Der geht nicht mehr so einen halben Tag durch ein Restaurant. Es ist so.

I: Wie ist dann denn bei den Mitarbeitern? Die Restaurantleiter, haben die von Ihnen irgendwelche Vorgaben, Standards, wie die Ihre Mitarbeiter händeln sollen, also dass es zum Beispiel wöchentliche Meetings geben soll oder…?

F: Es ist ganz klar vorgegeben auch.

I: Sowas haben Sie dann aber gemacht?

F: Ja.

I: Gibt es noch irgendwelche anderen Vorgaben, die Sie entwickelt haben?

F: Also ich sage mal Vapiano als Franchisegeber rät immer so tägliche Meetings zu machen an den Kochstationen, um den Mitarbeiter halt auch immer so tagesaktuelle Infos zu geben. Und wir machen intern immer erstmal ein Betriebsleiter-Meeting, immer wenn die BWA aus dem Vormonat vorliegt, es dauert ja immer ein bisschen bis alle Rechnungen eingetrudelt sind. So, und dann machen wir immer ein kurzes Meeting, wo wir halt die Ergebnisse durchsprechen und dann habe ich auch alle drei am Tisch sitzen. So, und dann kann man auch mal gucken: Mensch, warum ist, ich sage jetzt mal, die Food-Cost hier deutlich schlechter als in den andern beiden. So, und dann muss man überlegen woran es liegt, Und dann aus dem Gespräch gleichzeitig die Maßnahmen, Schulungen, Trainings usw. daraus ableiten. Damit es vielleicht wieder besser wird.

I: Ok. Das heißt das Level der Standardisierung ist mit jedem Geschäft…

F: Und Meeting geht von oben nach unten. Wenn ich ein Meeting mit meinen Betriebsleitern dann habe, dann folgt daraus natürlich ein Meeting Betriebsleiter mit Schichtführern. Und das halt was ich mit denen besprochen habe, wird dann da nochmal besprochen und geht dann letztendlich wieder vom einzelnen Restaurantleiter an den Teamleiter an der Station. Wenn ich sage: Wir haben da und da ein Problem, dass mir Mozzarella-Käse ohne Ende wegfliegt. So, dann kann das ja kein Problem vom Salat oder von der Pasta sein. Dann habe ich ein Pizza Problem, weil ich da den Käse überportioniere.


69

So, und dann kann da gleich der Teamleiter für die Pizza gleich wieder mit ins Boot geholt werden, dass der auch da wieder guckt. Also das ist ja immer von oben nach unten geht das dann runter.

I: Ok. Also, die Standardisierung wird mit jedem ein bisschen höher einfach um das ganze effektiver zu gestalten und weil Sie gemerkt haben manche Sachen laufen einfach besser, wenn man Sie so und so und so macht.

F: Ja.

I: Ok. Thema ich nenne es mal knowledge sharing. Also die Restaurantleiter untereinander, die sprechen ja sicherlich miteinander. Erstmal auf formellem Wege, also wenn die Meetings mit Ihnen haben gehe ich davon mal aus. Und sprechen die auch informell miteinander, also ohne Sie?

F: Ja. Also die haben eine ganz offene Kommunikation. Das fängt ja an mit irgendwelchem Warentausch, die die dann mal machen. Mensch, ich habe das zu wenig bestellt, und ich komme dann nachher mal vorbei und hole das ab. Dann wird ein Kaffee getrunken. Und das ist auch von mir so gefördert, dass da eine offene Kommunikation stattfindet. Wir machen auch zweimal im Jahr Manager-Essen wo ich dann gezielt versuche dann auch von umliegenden Kollegen dann auch noch einen Betriebsleiter oder einen Schichtführer zu kriegen, der dann da die Schicht macht, dass ich dann da alle mal auch zusammen habe. Dass da wirklich so ein Zusammenhaltsgefühl entsteht. Oder wenn ich jetzt einen neuen Schichtführer mal beschäftige, dass der dann auch mal in alle Geschäfte geht und da mal so eine gewisse Zeit verbringt um zu gucken: Mensch wie machen die das, wie machen die das. Jeder macht es dann doch noch ein bisschen anders vor Ort. Liegt aber auch wiederum an den einzelnen Gegebenheiten vor Ort, die wieder da sind.

I: Das hört sich jetzt vielleicht ein bisschen doof an, aber warum machen Sie das? Im Endeffekt könnten Sie ja auch so ein bisschen die Konkurrenz schüren? Ginge ja auch.

F: „Konkurrenz“ wir ja schon so ein bisschen geschürt. Das liegt ja auch daran, wenn Sie ein gutes Team haben und alle sage ich mal offen sind für „Kritik“, weil nichts anderes ist ja eine BWA-Besprechung. Da wird gelobt, aber hauptsächlich wird ja geguckt wo kann ich mich noch verbessern. So, und dann haben Sie natürlich schon diesen Wettbewerb und diesen ja ich sage mal Konkurrenzkampf, dass jeder der Beste sein will. So, und wenn Sie jetzt mal so ein Ausreißer haben, versucht natürlich derjenige, der Betriebsleiter, das so schnell wie möglich hinzukriegen, dass er die Kosten wieder da einfängt und sich beim nächsten Meeting dann vielleicht an die Spitze setzt. Also da gibt es schon so eine Art Konkurrenzkampf.

I: Ok, aber Sie sehen trotzdem einen Sinn darin, dass die alle miteinander arbeiten?

F: Auf jeden Fall. Also ich sage mal die Erfahrungen, die ich habe und die ich teile sind doch besser als die, die ich für mich behalte. Weil letztendlich sage ich mal sollen die ja alle voneinander profitieren.

I: Und das können Sie dann auch wirklich mit ihren Erfahrungen und…

F: Zum Glück habe ich in der Betriebsleitung, die sind alle vom ersten Tag bei mir beschäftigt, die Betriebsleiter.

I: Zentralisierung und Dezentralisierung. Da würde mich interessieren, welche Sachen haben Sie bewusst zentralisiert und welche bewusst dezentralisiert?

F: Zentralisiert habe ich die komplette Buchhaltung bei mir. Also in die einzelnen Restaurants, also Osnabrück und Bielefeld, gehen keine Rechnungen ein. Alle Rechnungen, was jetzt Rechnungen oder irgendetwas posttechnisches betrifft, läuft alles hier auf.

I: Was ist der Grund?

F: Weil ich das ja kontrolliere. Und ich habe Zuhause mein eigenes Büro. Hier wird die Post gesammelt im Restaurant, die nehme ich dann mit nach Hause. Oder hier unten, da habe ich auch so ein Abrechnungsbüro, je nachdem ob da was frei ist. Da mache ich die Post von hier und schicke das dann letztendlich auch an die Steuerberater.


70

I: Also ist dann letztendlich der Grund Sie können das am effektivsten machen oder sollen das die Restaurantleiter vielleicht auch alles gar nicht so unbedingt mitbekommen oder sollen die sich auf andere Sachen konzentrieren?

F: Das ist ja kein Geheimnis. Ich sage jetzt mal wenn ich eine Reparaturrechnung kriege, die hat der Betriebsleiter beauftragt. Aber letztendlich sage ich mal ist es mein Restaurant, mein Geld. So, und dann möchte ich schon selber das Heft des Handelns in der Hand behalten. Und nicht zentralisiert bewusst ist die Personalfrage, dass jeder Betriebsleiter für sich selber sein Personal sucht.

I: Ok. Und der Grund dafür ist…?

F: Erstens sage ich mal muss der auch mit den Leuten zusammenarbeiten. Und es kommen erfahrungsgemäß ja auch immer Leute ins Restaurant und fragen, ob es Arbeit ist. Ist einfach so in der Branche. So, und wenn Sie den dann wieder woanders hinschicken müssen, gehen Ihnen auch einfach unheimlich viele Mitarbeiter verloren. Weil ich sage mal die Fluktuation, also der Wechsel in der Gastronomie, gerade in der Systemgastronomie, ist schon nicht ganz ohne. Was jetzt den normalen Mitarbeiter betrifft. So und von daher wäre es töricht das Ganze zu versuchen zu zentralisieren.

I: Ok. So, das meiste haben wir glaube ich schon. Wie würden Sie denn Ihren Führungsstil beschreiben und hat der sich geändert seit Sie von einem auf drei Restaurants jetzt letztendlich gekommen sind?

F: Mein Führungsstil, wie würde ich den bezeichnen…. Ja, also ich sage mal, so grob gesagt ich kann gut Arbeit abgeben. Also ich bin nicht jemand der irgendwie sich versucht selber alles an die Fersen zu heften, sondern ich versuche schon gezielt wirklich die Aufgaben abzugeben in den Restaurants, so dass ich für mich selber genug Spielraum habe. Und ich denke das ist auch gut so. Weil ich sage mal wenn ich jemanden als führenden oder als leitenden Angestellten habe und ich schreibe dem alles vor, dann verliert er auch die Lust an der Arbeit. Geändert hat sich natürlich…. Ich sage mal natürlich ändert man immer so ein bisschen seinen Führungsstil, hat natürlich auch mit Alter, mit Erfahrung usw. zu tun. Aber ich denke schon, dass ich so im Groben und Ganzen meinen Führungsstil beibehalten habe. Ich bin ein ganz offener Typ, ich rede immer Klartext mit den Leuten, da wird nichts „beschönigt“. Und ich denke damit bin ich gut gefahren bis jetzt. Eigentlich habe ich im Management so gut wie keine Fluktuation über die ganzen Jahre. Bei mir kann auch jeder gutes Geld verdienen. Immer vorausgesetzt ich verdiene auch gutes Geld. Und wenn die Leute das einmal begriffen haben sage ich immer, dann haben sie auch Spaß an der Arbeit.

I: Das heißt eigentlich hat sich Ihr Führungsstil nicht wirklich verändert durch die Vergrößerung sondern eher durch Erfahrung, die Sie haben.

F: Natürlich vom ersten auf den zweiten Laden, der Schritt ist schon ein bisschen anders. Weil man selber seine Tätigkeiten natürlich anders definiert. Weil Sie mehr in diese Kontrollfunktion gehen. Sie verlassen eigentlich die operative Schiene und gehen wirklich nur noch auf Kontrollfunktion und Betreuungsfunktion, auf Überwachungsfunktion. Und mittendrin im Geschäft wird es natürlich noch mehr. Sie sind dann ganz viel Zeit des Tages im Auto unterwegs, um von Standort A nach B zu kommen. Und nutzen diese Zeit dann wieder und telefonieren einfach noch mehr. Ich sage mal der administrative Aufwand ist natürlich immer größer je mehr Geschäfte Sie haben. Man muss dann halt natürlich aufpassen, dass man das nicht schleifen lässt.

I: Welcher Schritt war denn größer, vom ersten aufs zweite oder vom zweiten aufs dritte?

F: Ja vom ersten auf den zweiten ist größer. Weil Sie dann einfach diese Wandlung haben. Ich sage mal so beim dritten kommt ich sage jetzt einfach mal nur noch ein Geschäft dazu. Aber diese operative Schiene haben Sie ja schon gehabt, dass Sie Betriebsleiter betreuen, dass Sie Gespräche machen. Da sitzt dann plötzlich nur noch einer mehr am Tisch. Und natürlich haben Sie schon mehr Arbeit, weil Sie auch einfach mehr unterwegs sind. Aber der Schritt von 1 auf 2 ist deutlich schwieriger als von 2 auf 3. Ich denke mal, wenn Sie irgendwann noch weiter expandieren, dann kommen Sie wirklich irgendwann in die Bredouille, dass Sie es selber auch nicht mehr schaffen.

I: Was glauben Sie denn wann der Punkt erreicht wäre?

F: Also ich sage mal wenn ich jetzt theoretisch noch eine Stadt dazunehmen würde, egal wo, dann ist der Schritt erreicht, dann würde ich noch einen einstellen.


71

I: Das heißt dann würden Sie dieses Bezirksleitersystem….

F: Ja, dann brauche ich einen, dringend. Ich sage mal jetzt kriege ich das noch alleine hin. Jetzt bin ich quasi so der Bezirksleiter. Aber wenn Sie noch ein Geschäft in einer anderen Stadt haben, dann wird wirklich irgendwann schwieriger, dass Sie dann noch wirklich genug Zeit in dem einzelnen Betrieb haben. So, und wenn Sie dann noch jemanden wechseln, wird’s dann schwierig, dass Geschäfte dann zu lange unbetreut sind.

I: Aber ist das denn dann wirklich die Größe und die Anzahl der Geschäfte oder mehr auch, dass die Geschäfte bei Vapiano auch ein bisschen weiter auseinanderliegen als das bei anderen als zum Beispiel bei McDonalds der Fall ist?

F: Das hat natürlich auch noch was damit zu tun. Ich sage mal es ist natürlich einfacher, wenn ich in Münster drei Geschäfte habe oder ich habe ein Geschäft in Münster, Osnabrück und Bielefeld. Deshalb sage ich ja, wenn noch eine Stadt jetzt dazukommen würde, würde ich sofort jemanden noch einstellen, weil ich sage: das kann ich gar nicht mehr leisten zeittechnisch, weil ich dann nur noch im Auto bin wenn ich die Geschäfte regelmäßig abfahren will und hätte dann quasi zu wenig Zeit in den einzelnen Geschäften.

I: Wenn sich jetzt praktisch noch einen zweiten nach Münster setzen würden…?

F: Dann würde ich es noch hinkriegen.

I: Ok. Ja, was mich noch interessieren würde wäre jetzt als abschließende Frage: Denken Sie denn, dass wie Sie das aufgebaut haben, also mit Schichtführern, Restaurantleitern und Sie on top mit Zentralisierung, Dezentralisierung usw, dass das die ideale Form ist es zu managen bei der Größe, die Sie jetzt haben?

F: Also für mich ist das optimal wo ich sage ich kann das alles gut händeln. Ich habe auch selber noch Luft andere Sachen zu machen, mich so damit zu beschäftigen selber noch zu expandieren.

I: Also Sie planen schon…

F: Ich plane immer…. Und letztendlich auch so zu arbeiten, dass die Geschäfte alle gut laufen. Das eine ist immer die Umsatzseite, die stimmen muss. Und das andere und wichtigere ist noch die Ertragsseite. Nur Umsatz alleine bringt Ihnen auch nichts, wenn Sie Ihre Kosten nicht im Griff haben. Und ich denke meine Betriebsergebnisse sind alle so, dass alle happy sind und dass da jetzt kein Anzeichen ist, ich sage mal: der ist überlastet, der kriegt das nicht hin. Es ist ja auch ganz oft so, wenn die Leute sich zu viel ans Bein binden und dann alles selber machen wollen, wird’s schwierig. Aber ich kann gut abgeben. Und ich denke so ist es dann auch… klar, Sie müssen die richtigen Leute haben an Ihrer Seite, Sie müssen es abgeben können und Sie müssen sich letztendlich auch Freiräume schaffen, um sich um das große Ganze zu kümmern und letztendlich auch noch um andere Sachen zu kümmern wie eventuelle Expansion. Und ich sage mal Vapiano lebt ja auch vor Ort davon, dass denke ich jemand da ist, der da mal hingeht, da mal hingeht. So Präsenz zeigt. Und ich denke Sie sind da auch Teil der Gemeinde. Und was ja auch ganz wichtig ist.

I: Ich überlege gerade, hatte ich schon gefragt, warum Sie das gewerbliche Mitarbeitermangement dezentralisiert hatten?

F: Warum ich das gemacht habe?

I: Ja.

F: Ich habe ja gesagt vorhin, weil es einfacher zu händeln ist, wenn ich das nicht zentral mache sondern dezentral.

I: Einfach vom Zeitaufwand für Sie?

F: Ja, nicht nur vom Zeitaufwand, sondern auch ich sage mal, es geht ja auch darum den optimalen Mitarbeiter zu finden. So, und wenn Sie es zentralisieren, gerade bei der Größe des Gebiets, ich sage mal es wird niemand von Bielefeld nach Münster kommen zum Vorstellungsgespräch, weil er gewerblicher Mitarbeiter werden will. Das können Sie knicken. So, und ich sage mal ganz oft, 50% der Mitarbeiter, die Sie akquirieren, kommen rein und fragen: Sucht ihr Mitarbeiter? So, und wenn Sie dann den Betriebsleiter mal nicht vor Ort haben, der ja letztendlich bei mir zumindest, andere machen


72

das ja auch anders, der ja letztendlich auch als leitender Angestellter dazu befähigt ist den ein- und auszustellen, der ruft mich ja nicht an und sagt. Chef, ich habe hier einen Mitarbeiter rausgeschmissen, sondern der entlässt den einfach. Oder entscheidet irgendwann mal, wenn seine Frist gekommen ist, den Vertrag einfach nicht zu verlängern, weil irgendetwas vorgefallen ist. So, und da vertraue ich letztendlich auch meinem Betriebsleiter vor Ort, der letztendlich auch in der Lage sein soll, sage ich mal, die Mitarbeiter zu finden, die wir brauchen. Es gibt ja ganz klare Anforderungsprofile, die wir haben an einen Mitarbeiter. So, und der muss ja selber auch mit dem Mitarbeiter klarkommen. Ich möchte niemandem einen Mitarbeiter aufdrängen, wo er sagt: Mensch, den hätte ich selber gar nicht eingestellt. Andererseits sage ich mal, wenn ich hinkomme und da findet sich so eine Mitarbeiterqualität, die mir nicht gefällt, dann würde ich das auch kundtun. Aber ich denke mal da sind wir alle so auf einer Spur. Da gibt es ganz klare Vorgaben was wir wollen und ich denke das wissen alle und so denke ich ist die Mitarbeiterqualität auch bei uns. Man sieht das ja auch in den Bewertungen, die wir haben, alles ist gut. Bei uns wird immer sehr die Mitarbeiterfreundlichkeit hervorgehoben, dass ein Mitarbeiter relativ freundlich sind, dass ich immer eine gute Besetzung habe usw.


73

APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW INFORMATION

Interviewee Company No. of

units Status

Interview

Date

Interview

Duration

Interview

Location

D3 McDonald‘s 3

Former deputy general manager and son of a franchisee

15 October 00:42 h. McDonald’s unit

D8 McDonald‘s 8 Franchisee 16 October 01:37 h. Office D15 McDonald‘s 15 Franchisee 14 October 00:42 h. Skype V3 Vapiano 3 Franchisee 21 October 00:45 h. Vapiano unit J3 Joey’s Pizza 3 Franchisee 28 October 01:00 h. Café K4 KFC 4 Franchisee 30 October 01:20 h. KFC unit

K17 KFC, Pizza Hut & Coffee Corner

17 Franchisee 23 October 00:54 h. Office

S3 Subway 3 Franchisee 24 October 00:43 h. Subway unit S5 Subway 5 Franchisee 25 October 00:54 h. Skype S11 Subway 11 Franchisee 29 October 00:50 h. Office

Jan

Schmelzle

Deutscher Franchise Verband e.V. (German Franchise Association)

-

Employee in the area of legal coordination and organisation

12 September 9 October 15 October

Around 10-15 minutes each

Phone

Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising

Documents

Transcript of Organisational Configuration within Multi-Unit Franchising