A short vignette about maintaining contacts and gaining access to organisations to collect data. Access issues can be extremely challenging and disheartening, but the key is to remain open minded and flexible to change.
There are some different – and interesting – characteristics about HRM in franchises that make for a unique case study. Franchises straddle contrasting business types, and hence, their approach to managing people is distinctive. Franchises systems are managed by a ‘franchisor’ (the owner of the brand, business systems and intellectual property), and supported by a Corporate Office that generally operates like a large business. The Corporate Office maintains functions like marketing, finance, IT, operations, site development, and sometimes – HRM. Often, the franchisor also owns and manages corporate ‘units’ (stores) whose employees are legally employed by the franchisor. Other units are owned and managed by ‘franchisees’, essentially independent business people who purchase the rights to use the franchisor’s trademarked name and business model to sell a product or service in their own unit. Typically, these franchised units are small businesses operating in the framework of a large business system.
Keith Townsend and Ashlea Kellner
Ashlea Kellner, Kenneth Cafferkey and Keith Townsend
Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) theory has been adopted extensively to potentially explain the complex relationship between how people are managed and subsequent performance outcomes. Specifically, the theory suggests some combination of an individual’s ability (A), motivation (M) and opportunities (O) can give us a measure of an individual’s performance (P) (expressed as AMO = P). AMO theory is concerned with individual characteristics as independent variables, however, in its application in the HRM field, researchers have supplemented these independent variables for HR practices and policies, resulting in at least two different incarnations of the AMO model. Further compounding this issue, AMO theory has seldom seen empirical testing, and there is significant lack of consistency in definition and selection of variables. In this chapter, the authors develop an argument that AMO theory is poorly defined and tested, and its appeal is that it can be adapted to suit almost any HRM study.