Franchisees inhibit their own success by focusing on what corporate isn't doing for them. The most successful operators ignore corporate limitations and innovate within the significant portion of the business they directly control, such as local marketing and store operations.
Related Insights
Large corporations can avoid stagnation by intentionally preserving the "scrappy" entrepreneurial spirit of their early days. This means empowering local teams and market leaders to operate with an owner's mindset, which fosters accountability and keeps the entire organization agile and innovative.
Franchising is a different business model focused on systems, training, and brand protection. Before considering it, a founder must first prove their concept is replicable by successfully opening and operating a second company-owned location. This provides the necessary data and validates the model's scalability.
To build a successful franchise, a business must first prove its model is profitable and repeatable. This requires operating three to five corporate-owned stores to perfect unit economics, training systems, brand voice, and operational simplicity before licensing the model to others.
Many business struggles are not unique problems but are inherent features of the industry itself, like labor shortages in cleaning or client motivation in fitness. Recognizing this shifts focus from trying to "solve" the unsolvable to managing the dichotomy effectively.
A one-size-fits-all approach stifles innovation in global companies. To build trust and adapt effectively, leaders must empower local teams with decision-making authority. This respects crucial market-specific cultural nuances and consumer behaviors.
Home Depot's decentralized model gives regional presidents significant autonomy but with clear, unspoken boundaries—the "invisible fence." This fosters local ownership and agility while ensuring alignment with core company principles. Crossing the line results in a "zap," maintaining strategic cohesion without micromanagement.
Todd Graves explains that while his franchisees were exceptional (rated 85/100), they couldn't match the meticulous quality of corporate-run stores (95/100). This gap, plus the inefficiency of implementing changes across a franchise system, drove his preference for corporate ownership to maintain ultimate brand integrity.
Blaming external factors like a "bad market" or "no good talent" makes you powerless. Rephrasing the problem as a personal skill deficit—e.g., "I lack the skill to attract talent"—immediately makes it solvable because you can learn new skills. This puts you back in control of the outcome.
Saying "the market is crowded" or "there are no good salespeople" renders you powerless. By reframing these as "I lack the skill to get more leads" or "I lack the skill to hire well," you become the source of the solution and regain agency to change the outcome.
Founders often see franchising as a way to scale without managing more employees. However, it shifts the people problem to managing franchisees. This requires enforcing brand standards and managing underperformers who are also business owners, a group that can consume 80% of your time.
