Franchising is a signifier of concern in which the franchiser gives the authorization to a franchisee to administer services, merchandises or methods of concern to attached traders. In many instances franchisees are given sole entree to a peculiar geographical country. The franchiser normally mandates unvarying symbols, hallmarks and standardisation of services.

Presently Burger King has 3 different signifiers of franchise strategies, which correspond to 3 different types of franchise ownership:

Individual or Owner/ Operator


We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Individual or owner/ operator ownership was traditionally used for persons who signed the franchise understanding personally and who were personally responsible for runing the franchise eating house. Although the single franchise understanding can be assigned to an operating company under certain conditions, the person remains personally responsible under the franchise understanding.

Entity ownership allows different signifiers of ownership and direction of, and equity investing in the franchisee. Under the Entity ownership plan, a corporation, a limited partnership or a limited liability company can straight put to death the Entity franchisee strategy if they satisfy Burger King ‘s guidelines and for blessing of franchise ownership distribution programs. By and large, one of the conditions of Entity ownership is that one or more persons or entities warrant to be responsible for the franchisee duties to Burger King out of which one of them has to be designated by Burger King ‘s blessing to be the pull offing proprietor who shall be responsible to guarantee that they comply to the franchise understanding and has to hold adequate authorization to do certain determinations. Additionally the managing proprietor must hold at least 5 % ownership of the franchisee.

Corporate ownership franchise strategy occurs when a company with publicly-traded stock or a subordinate of a publicly-traded company, that controls locations that are non accessible or have limited entree to the general populace. Such franchisees are typically nutrient service companies that provide a assortment of contract feeding services in a institutional location such as authorities edifices and installations, airdromes, coach and train Stationss, subject Parkss and menagerie. A qualified manager of operations who shall be approved by Burger King needs to be appointed who will hold certain duties and authorization to guarantee that the corporate franchisee is following with the franchise understanding.

Although these 3 franchise strategies may somewhat change between them as to duties and apparatus costs, nevertheless in substance they follow the traditional franchise apparatus that Burger King has adopted through the old ages.

Burger King grants franchises to run eating houses utilizing Burger King hallmarks, trade frock and other rational belongings rights that it owns, from unvarying operating processs, consistent quality of merchandises and services to standard processs for stock list control and direction. For each franchise eating house, Burger King enters into a franchise understanding covering a standard set of footings and conditions. Recuring fees consist of monthly royalty and advertisement payments that range between 3.5 % to 5 % on gross gross revenues, and a fixed annually fee that starts at $ 50,000 depending on the size of franchisee set-up.


Burger King offers its franchisees its celebrated barbell bill of fare scheme, which gives the franchisees the chance to spread out on Burger King ‘s high-margin premium merchandises and value merchandises and in order to turn the nucleus drivers of our merchandise offerings. The barbell bill of fare scheme is aimed at driving mean cheque and traffic, since it is believed that by equilibrating higher border merchandises with value offerings Burger King ‘s trade name equity of flame-broiled gustatory sensation, we can distinguish Burger King from its rivals.

However the fast nutrient industry is extremely competitory and some of Burger King ‘s rivals have significantly greater resources such as Macdonald ‘s. This leads to a disadvantage when it comes to viing with them and most of all to respond to alterations in pricing, selling and the speedy service eating house section in general more rapidly and more efficaciously than Burger King can. This gives the rivals a competitory advantage through higher degrees of trade name consciousness among consumers. In add-on, our major rivals are besides able to give greater resources to speed up their eating house remodeling and reconstructing attempts, present new merchandise and implement advantageous merchandise offerings, which could give them a competitory border over Burger King.

The market for retail existent estate is extremely competitory. Based on their size advantage and/or their greater fiscal resources, Burger King ‘s major rivals may hold the ability to negociate more favourable footings and enterprisers may offer precedence or grant exclusivity to these rivals for more desirable locations. As a consequence, this may impede the ability to obtain new franchisees or regenerate bing understandings.

The capital required to turn and keep Burger King Corporation is chiefly funded by franchise understandings, this presents a figure of drawbacks in Burger King ‘s scheme, particularly when the company presently merely holds 10 % of the eating houses and it is be aftering to significantly cut down it over the following 5 old ages. This may take to debatable state of affairss whereby Burger King being the franchise will hold limited influence over franchisees and trust on franchisees to implement major enterprises. This may besides take to limited ability to ease alterations in eating house ownership, restrictions on enforcement of franchise duties due to bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings and inability or involuntariness of franchisees to take part in our strategic enterprises.

On the other manus Burger King ‘s chief rivals are chiefly Macdonald ‘s and Wendy ‘s. These have greater influence over their several franchisees due to the significantly higher per centum of company eating houses and ownership of franchisee existent estate that they hold. This may ensue, that they may hold a greater ability to implement operational enterprises and concern schemes, including their selling and advertisement plans.

While Burger King can mandate certain strategic enterprises through the enforcement of its franchise understandings, they need the actively seek support from its franchisees for a successful execution of these enterprises. These attempts to construct this alliance with its franchisees may ensue in a hold in the execution of the selling and advertisement plans. Although the current relationship with its franchisees is by and large good, there is no confidence that it will go on to be so. In fact Burger King has already been sued by the National Franchisee association, this organisation represents over 50 % of Burger King ‘s franchisees in the United States. This jurisprudence suit is due to Burger King ‘s determination to order to the U.S. franchisees to sell the 1/4 pound. Double Cheeseburger and the Buck Double Burger at $ 1. This is a clear illustration whereby Burger King ‘s failure to win the franchisees support in its selling plans and strategic enterprises could take to negatively impact the ability to implement the concern scheme that it would hold decided to follow.

Burger King ‘s operating consequences well depend upon its franchisees gross revenues. However, its franchisees are independent operators and they can non command many factors that impact the profitableness of their eating houses. Pursuant to the franchise understandings and their operational manual, Burger King authorization bill of fare points, signage, equipment, hours of operation and value bill of fare, standardisation of processs and blessing of providers. However, the quality of franchise eating house operations may be diminished by any figure of factors beyond its control. Consequently, franchisees may non successfully operate eating houses in a consistent mode with the female parent company criterions and demands. Due to assorted factors, Burger King as a franchisor may non be able to place jobs and take action rapidly plenty ; as a consequence, its image and repute may endure.

Most of Burger King ‘s franchisee eating houses are soon located on chartered premises. As eating house rentals expire, our franchisees may be unable to renegociate a new rental, on commercially acceptable footings or nil at all, which could do a figure of its franchisees to shut down.

As already stated, the fast nutrient industry is intensely competitory and Burger King has to vie both in the U.S. and internationally with a figure of established companies on the footing of merchandise pick, quality, affordability, service and location. Burger Kings rivals include a assortment of independent operators, in add-on to well-capitalized national and international ironss and franchises. Furthermore, this industry has few barriers to entry, and hence new rivals may emerge at any clip. Burger King ‘s ability to vie will chiefly depend on the success to better bing merchandises, to develop new merchandises, efficaciously respond to consumer penchants and to pull off the complexness of its operations every bit good as the impact of our rivals ‘ actions.

On the other manus, negative macro effects of franchising include the leaning of franchising to advance anticompetitive distribution systems ( Hunt, 1972 ) , the rationalisation of consumer pick ( Alon, 2004 ) , and the devastation of local imposts ( Ram, 2004 ) , taking to what has been called the “ McDonaldization of Society ” ( Ritzer, 1995 ) .

Alon I. 2004. Global franchising and development in emerging and transitioning markets. Journal

of Macromarketing 24: 156-167.

Hunt SD. 1972. The socioeconomic effects of the franchise system of distribution. Journal

Marketing 36: 32-38.

Ram U. 2004. Glocommodification: how the planetary consumes the local: McDonald ‘s in Israel. Current

Sociology 52: 11-31.

Ritzer G. 1995. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character

of Contemporary Social Life. Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Using relevant theory and illustrations to back up your reply, critically measure the function of leading in pull offing cultural and behavioural factors during the executing of a turnaround scheme. A

In the quickly developing modern universe and the age of globalisation, the construct of organizational alteration has become more of import than of all time earlier. Although it has ever been an of import characteristic of organizational life, the ‘place, magnitude and necessity ‘ of organizational alteration has well escalated over the past two decennaries ( Arnold, 2005 ) . As Mullins ( 2007 ) provinces,

“ Change is a permeant influence. It is an ineluctable portion of both societal and organizational life and we are all topic to continual alteration of one signifier or another ” .

There exists a battalion of grounds as to why administrations must invariably do alterations, both external and internal. Although internal factors play a function, the chief force per unit areas faced by companies to alter comes from external forces. This is because in order to last in the corporate universe, administrations must be decently prepared to face and respond to the new challenges and chances presented by the ever-changing external environment ( Mullins, 2007 ) .

Many administrations appear to be in a uninterrupted province of alteration as they are forced to increase the velocity with which they respond to the capriciousness of external factors, indispensable for their endurance ( Hussey, 2000 ) . One of the most influential forces inciting organizational alteration today is the rapid rate of globalization and attendant ferocious universe competition. With the speed uping outgrowth of economic systems such as India and China, Mayle ( 2006 ) states that

“ globalization is no longer an academic subject or a fringe motion but a concern jussive mood ”

Therefore making the demand for changeless alteration and the fact that competition is escalating, means that administrations can non merely disregard developments and give advantage to their rivals. Technological alteration has hence become highly important as the rate of obsolescence additions, a tendency that is set to go more important with the rapid growing of the cyberspace and E-commerce. As Hussey ( 2000 ) provinces, it is improbable that administrations can present new developments without doing alterations to accomplishments, occupations, construction and frequently civilization. Another external factor to see is that the demographic profile of most states is altering – the proportion of older people is increasing comparative to the proportion of younger people. This will make immense force per unit areas for administrations, and corporate issues may affect ‘finding ways of covering with accomplishment deficits, alterations in attitudes to the employment of older people and jobs of motive in level organizational constructions which offer small chance for publicity ‘ ( Hussey, 2000 ) . Other external forces of alteration relevant to administrations include authorities intercession, political involvements, scarceness of natural resources and the nature of clients. Internal beginnings of alteration include inventions, new methods of work, re-locating, preparation, staff development and the re-allocation of resources and duties ( Mullins, 2007 ) . The endurance and success of any administration depends how they choose to accommodate to these internal and external demands. It is non about whether to alter, but to how and when. Burger King started this procedure in 1977, by engaging Donald Smith as president and CEO. Smith identified the deficits that Burger King was confronting at the clip. Smith adapted and executed his turnaround scheme, and modelled on the footing of Macdonald ‘s scheme which proofed instead successful.

The procedures involved in organizational alteration may differ widely depending on the corporation in inquiry and the current state of affairs that it is confronting. However, it is of import for all administrations in today ‘s globalised economic system to understand the importance of continual alteration – invariably transforming in order to maintain up with the altering environment and hence survive in the competitory modern universe. The existent alterations to an administration can either be implemented in a planned and systematic manner, frequently designed and implemented by advisers, or in a more informal and reactive manner, where directors react to state of affairss on a day-to-day footing and implement alteration consequently ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) . The impression of organisational development – alteration that focuses on the whole organisation – is concerned with awaited, planned and consciously designed alteration that will function to increase an organisations effectivity ( Cummings & A ; Worley ) . Lewin ‘s alteration theoretical account provides a cardinal theoretical account of planned alteration, which perceives alteration as a ‘modification of those forces maintaining a system ‘s behavior stable ‘ . In this theoretical account, Lewin believes that the alteration procedure consists of three stairss: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. Dissolving involves decreasing the forces that uphold an organisations current behavior – frequently done by demoing employees the disagreements between behaviour desired by the organisation and behaviour that is presently displayed. Through a procedure of ‘psychological disconfirmation ‘ members can thereby be motivated to alter. The 2nd measure, ‘Moving ‘ purposes to switch the current behaviour of the organisation by developing new behaviours, values and attitudes in the system through alterations in organisational constructions and procedures. Third, ‘Refreezing ‘ involves the stabilisation of the organisation at its new province, frequently through back uping mechanisms such as organisational civilization, norms, policies and constructions ‘ ( Cummings & A ; Worley, 2001 ) . Lewin ‘s theoretical account serves to supply a general construction that allows one to understand organisational alteration and the procedures involved.

The demand for directors to reconstitute administrations and go more flexible is ineluctable, and due to go oning tendencies in engineering and fabrication development, administrations must run as ‘masters of alteration ‘ ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) . Surveies have shown that the planned attack to organizational alteration, utilizing techniques such as preparation programmes and end puting programmes, have had more positive effects on productiveness than other attacks, as they have been more effectual in altering satisfaction and attitudes ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) .

Change can make a feeling of deep opposition amongst the people of an administration, therefore doing it hard, sometimes impossible, to successfully implement organizational betterments. Strong opposition to alter can happen even when employees are to the full cognizant of the weaknesss and restrictions of the current system employed ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) , and such opposition can stem from a figure of beginnings.

Resistance to alter can happen due to the fright of the unknown as employees worry that the new system may be more hard to utilize than the present one or that they will be forced to confront new jobs and determinations for which they lack experience ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) . De Jager ( 2001 ) argues, ‘Most people are loath to go forth the familiar buttocks. We are all leery about the unfamiliar ; we are of course concerned about how we will acquire from the old to the new, particularly if it involves larning something new and risking failure ” ( p. 24 ) . As Bolognese ( 2002 ) suggests, opposition can besides be considered an inevitable response to any important alteration as ‘individuals of course rush to support the position quo if their security or position is threatened ‘ . The being of a strong administration civilization and power construction, which of course serves to keep stable behavior spiels, can besides move as a barrier to alter, as the very nature of alteration will set them in hazard ( Tosi, Rizzo & A ; Carroll, 1994 ) .

Although such grounds exist, the directors of any administration should be responsible to turn such negative positions around and neutralize them into something positive. Much opposition is caused due to the deficiency of communicating in the execution procedure, which leads to misconstruing on the employees behalf and accordingly the deficiency of trust in top grade direction. It is of import, hence, for administrations to set up a strong clime of trust in order to do any alterations possible. The engagement of employees in the alteration procedure, particularly the demand to pass on, is besides cardinal to the effectivity of any direction alteration, and directors should actively promote engagement and impart support to their people. Between 1980 and 2004, Burger King had n’t managed to maintain up with the gait. Throughout these 24 old ages Burger King had seen 11 CEO ‘s, whereby its market portion slid down to 15.6 % . Following the take-over by the private equity TPG group in 2002 and the assignment of Greg Brenneman as CEO in 2004, Burger King had set its scheme to recovery. Brenneman holding held board assignments in different industries, which presumptively follow different strategic patterns, were more likely to originate strategic alteration at their ain house ( Geletkanycz and Hambrick 1997 ) . Brenneman launched his ‘go frontward program ‘ whereby he focused on 4 cardinal strategic aims ;

Increase profitableness

Fire up the client

Fund the hereafter

Work together

Brenneman tackled the chief debatable issues by deconstructing the job and undertaking the issue at its beginning. This strategic enterprise and alteration did non come without any opposition, nevertheless he had managed to pass on and take on the duty of assisting the direction squad to get the better of such opposition by effectual communicating and clear vision which in return managed to implement the needed alterations efficaciously.

Arnold, 2005, Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, Pearson Education

Burnes, B. , 2004, Pull offing Change, Pearson Education Limited,

Cummingss, T. , Worley, C. , 2001, Necessities of Organization Development & A ; Change, South Western College Publishing

De Jager, P. , 2001, Resistance to alter: a new position of an old job. The Futurist, 24-27.

Geletkanycz, M. , Hambrick, D. , 1997, The external ties of top executives: deductions for strategic pick and public presentation. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 654-681.

Hussey, D. , 2000 How to pull off Organisational alteration, Kogan Page.

Mayle, D. , 2006, Pull offing Innovation and Change, SAGE Publications, Third Edition

Morgan, G.,1986, Images of Organizations, Sage: Beverley Hills, Ca, USA

Mullins, L. , 2007, Management and Organisational Behaviour, FT Prentice Hall

Rama, P. , Murthy, New Age International Publishers, Production and Operations Management

Tosi, H. , Rizzo, J. , Carroll, S. , 1994, Pull offing Organizational Behaviour, Third Edition, Blackwell Publishers Inc, Chapter 17

Voss, C. , and Robinson, S. , 1987, ‘The application of just-in-time techniques ‘ International Journal of Operations and Production


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out