Multiple are the problems that arise between a franchise company and its franchisees.
The expectation of both, franchisor and franchisee, is that the other complies.
For the franchising firm, the merchant is its best customer, therefore it must provide all the support for the system to work; For the franchisee, the firm is its best supplier, therefore it must comply with the conditions provided.
Strategic direction is the responsibility of the franchisor, contact with the public is the responsibility of the merchant.
The merchant is the best customer. The franchise is the best provider
Many think that the contracts are quite rigid, of which the franchisees complain or accept resignedly and the franchising firms acknowledge and affirm that "it cannot be otherwise". Not all are the same, some firms say they make contracts "easy in and out" and want to have "as few legal issues as possible." In other cases, the admission process (which includes training and education) can last up to two years.
With some firms, franchisees can permanently negotiate the rules of the game and with others (the majority) they must strictly comply with the indications.
Potential conflicts are: The unilateral belief that what matters most is one's own; franchising firms often detract from the role of the merchant by stating that they (the others) "do not run any risk, they are given everything, all they have to do is sell." At the same time, the merchants believe that the firms hold them as captives, they take the main profits, and "in reality, we are every day dealing with the public."
Believing that the most important thing is only one's own is a source of conflict
What must be taken into account to avoid conflicts?
a) Previous collections.
b) Good communication.
Preliminary precautions: both franchisors and franchisees should know who they are messing with ». There are people who "mess with" firms that make the incorporation of businesses much easier, open the franchise without further requirements, the franchisees make their investment and then the firm abandons them and they lose everything. On the other hand, firms, if they do not take enough time to review the background of the one offered as a franchisee and to prepare it properly, may have problems of non-compliance with the «know-how», with a loss of prestige of the brand and the product.
It is important for the franchisor to take time to check the background of his "client" and also prepare it.
The fanchisee must take into account the trajectory of the firm, the quality of the product, the support provided by the firm (advertising, packaging, adequate product renewal, etc.).
When the negotiations by the franchisor are carried out by a person who comes from another country, and / or franchisees from different provinces, it is very important to take into account the different cultures, beliefs and criteria. Many misunderstandings arise from these differences that are misinterpreted as ill will, laziness, or hostility.
Good communication: clarity in relationships is based on optimal communication, that everyone knows all the time "what we are talking about." Good communication is the only way to meet the needs of the firm, merchants, clients, transmit and sustain a common business vision. The essence of good negotiation and mediation is to be able to find and contemplate the needs of the protagonists. If communication is permanent and in all directions, it allows establishing a process that generates trust between the parties and creates the conditions for a healthy methodology for resolving differences.
Taking into account the needs of all the protagonists is
on the basis of a good negotiation
What to do once the conflict has become unmanageable?
One of the things that can be done is to try to beat the other. Another is to try to fix things, even when it seems impossible. How? Calling a third party to help.
There are many situations in which a mediator can be of help in negotiating a franchise; help to prevent and, help when the conflict is raised.
John Heynes (one of the creators of mediation in the US), defined mediation as a negotiation through which problems are resolved, if the protagonists of the same voluntarily wish, within a framework of equity.
As it does?
Many negotiations stall because there is an escalation (each one insists on an attitude of following a course of action even knowing that it does not allow an agreement), or because there are different positions of power, or different hierarchical positions.
The mediator acts as a "closer" of the messages of each other, with the greatest possible equity, trying with his intervention to reduce these differences in power, legitimizing each and every one of the interventions.
The mediator is a "closer" of messages
Taking into account that the protagonists of a conflict have not only competing interests, but also common interests, stopping an escalation, decreasing the struggle for power, makes it possible to investigate and allow the most genuine interests of each. This facilitates the possibility of an agreement, and also that this agreement is fulfilled over time, because its terms are proposed by the protagonists themselves.
The legitimation and recognition of each one is an important step in a mediation, even beyond whether there is an agreement or not; The very process of mediation is an experience in which people are considered as such and begins a change that makes, if not today, perhaps later, at another time in the future, the agreement is possible.
In summary
"Wanting to be right costs a lot more money, time and energy than using techniques that improve communication and allow for mediation."
