{{title}}
{{byline}}
{{byline}}
Consider a regional director assigned to stabilize a struggling location while preparing another unit to open. Both need recruiting and on-site coaching. The weaker location also needs capital that could fund improvements at an established unit.
In this hypothetical situation, approving the recovery effort commits the same people and money to competing work. Who prepares the new team if the director spends more time at the struggling location? Which improvements wait?
The owner wants the new opening to succeed while determining whether the struggling location can earn another commitment. The review needs to establish what supporting both would require.
The lowest-performing unit may still deserve another investment. Its sales and profit ranking starts the review. The decision depends on what can realistically improve, who can carry the work, and what the commitment changes across the portfolio.
Start with the cause of the performance gap. Missed shifts and inconsistent service may point to an execution problem. A market that has lost customers, or rent that is too high for achievable sales, requires a different response. Compare the unit with locations of similar maturity and format in comparable markets. Different brands may also have different staffing and cost requirements.
Restaurant Dive's September 16, 2026 reporting examined bankruptcies among multi-unit restaurant franchisees, citing high labor and food costs alongside weaker traffic. For an owner considering another investment, those pressures need to be separated. Better scheduling may reduce avoidable labor expense. Equipment may improve service speed or reduce waste. The recovery case still needs evidence that customer demand can support the proposed spending.
A required remodel needs the same discipline. Separate the cost of meeting the brand obligation from the evidence that the work will improve results. If recovery depends on a lease concession or franchisor support, confirm that help before including it in the forecast.
For the regional director, the initial assignment might be to determine whether staffing and service failures explain the gap. That gives the owner a specific question to resolve before approving a larger project.
A unit may have a correctable problem while the organization lacks the available leadership to correct it.
Before assigning the director, establish who can carry the new opening. If another qualified leader can take responsibility once the team is staffed and trained, the recovery effort might expand after that handoff. Until then, keep the assignment within the director's available time. If the handoff cannot be made, include the opening's likely delay in the recovery decision.
Define what the director can do during that limited effort: change schedules, arrange training, or approve spending within an agreed budget, subject to company policy and brand requirements. Identify which decisions need further approval and who will provide it. Otherwise, routine staffing and spending questions can keep returning to the owner despite the director's assignment.
This provides a practical test within succession planning. Can another leader weigh the competing demands, make decisions within clear authority, and explain when further approval is needed? The owner can assess that judgment through a live operating decision while retaining control over the larger commitment.
The demands on other units can be easy to underestimate. Time spent filling vacancies at the struggling location may delay hiring for the opening. Repeated payroll corrections can occupy the finance team during a reporting deadline. Identify the actual work displaced and how long the extra support would be needed.
Also examine contributions the unit's profit-and-loss statement may miss. A weaker location might train managers or allow nearby units to share staff. Any claimed territory protection needs to be checked against the franchise agreement. Calling a unit "strategic" should lead to evidence of its benefit and what replacing that benefit would require.
Closure deserves the same scrutiny. Office costs allocated to the unit may remain after it closes, leaving fewer locations to support them. Ask finance which expenses would end and which would stay. Employee transfers also depend on available roles at nearby units; expected customer transfers need a reasonable basis.
Check back next week for part two.
Kendall Rawls with Rawls Succession Planners partners with multi-unit franchise owners at a board level to help ensure growth does not create hidden risk. We focus on reducing dependency, strengthening leadership capacity, and making sure complexity doesn't quietly limit future options. To pressure-test where your organization still relies on you, and where it no longer should, contact us to arrange a private consultation. Visit seekingsuccession.com or email kendall@rawlsgroup.com.