They introduce a new initiative, address the friction, and for a while things feel more settled. Then, months later, the same tension resurfaces in a slightly different form. The frustration in their voice is unmistakable. “Why,” they ask, “does this keep happening?”
The answer, more often than not, is the same. It keeps happening because it is supposed to. Not every challenge in franchising is a problem waiting to be solved. Some are polarities and understanding the difference is one of the most useful shifts a franchisor can make.
What is a polarity?
The concept comes from the work of Dr Barry Johnson, whose 1992 book ‘Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems’ introduced a framework that has since been applied across leadership, healthcare, education, and organisational development. Johnson’s central insight is straightforward but profound: some challenges are not problems with solutions. They are ongoing tensions between two interdependent values, both of which are legitimate, and neither of which can be abandoned without cost.
A problem has a solution. You identify the cause, apply the fix, and move on. On the other hand, a polarity cannot be resolved that way. If you try to eliminate one pole entirely in favour of the other, you create a new set of problems and eventually the pendulum swings back. The goal is not to choose a side, the goal is to manage the tension well, over time.
In franchising, polarities are everywhere. Three of them sit at the very heart of the franchisor-franchisee relationship.
Consistency vs. Flexibility
Every franchisor understands the importance of brand consistency. It is, in many ways, what the franchisee is buying: a proven system, a recognisable name, a set of standards that customers trust wherever they encounter it. And yet every franchisee operates in a local market with its own rhythms, demographics, and competitive pressures. And franchisees may have their individual style of managing teams or
strategizing for growth. The tension between maintaining consistency and allowing meaningful flexibility is not a design flaw in franchising. It is an inherent feature of it.
Push too hard for uniformity and you stifle the entrepreneurial energy that makes franchisees effective. Allow unchecked flexibility and the brand loses the coherence that gave it value in the first place. Neither extreme serves the network. The franchisor’s task is to hold both, to be clear about what must never vary, and genuinely open about what can.
Control vs. Autonomy
This is perhaps the most emotionally charged polarity in franchising, because it touches on identity. Franchisors have a legitimate responsibility to protect the brand, maintain compliance, and uphold the standards that all franchisees have bought into. Franchisees have an equally legitimate need to feel that they own and lead their business — that they are business owners, not employees in disguise.
When franchisors over-control, franchisees disengage. They stop bringing ideas forward. They comply minimally and invest emotionally elsewhere. When franchisees push for unchecked autonomy, the system begins to fragment. Neither pole is wrong. Both contain real value. The relationship works best when franchisors exercise authority with transparency and restraint, and franchisees operate within the system with ownership and pride.
Support vs. Accountability
This is the polarity which is mismanaged most frequently, and the one with the most direct impact on network performance. Support teams exist to help franchisees grow. But support without accountability can quietly enable underperformance. The support manager who avoids difficult conversations because they want to be liked, the franchisor who confuses activity with progress.
Equally, accountability without genuine support feels punitive. Franchisees who feel monitored rather than mentored become defensive, guarded, and ultimately less likely to share the honest picture of what is happening in their business. The sweet spot which is achievable is a support relationship where challenge and care are inseparable. Where a franchisee knows that the difficult question is being asked because someone believes in their potential, not because someone is building a case against them.
Why this matters
Johnson’s framework asks us to stop treating polarities as problems and start managing them as ongoing responsibilities. That is a meaningful shift for franchise leaders. It
means accepting that some tensions will never be fully resolved . That this is not a failure of leadership. It is the nature of the relationship.
There are, of course some franchisors who have eliminated tension from their networks. They are those who have developed the awareness to recognise a polarity when they see one, the humility to stop trying to fix what was never broken, and the skill to navigate both poles with intention.
This article comes courtesy of Franchise HQ, the franchise support development specialists dedicated to equipping franchise support teams with the skills and confidence to drive network performance.
