Tension between the founder of a business and the managers
that eventually assume control is perhaps unavoidable. Such tension can be cut
with a knife in the film, The Founder (2016),
which tells the story of how McDonalds went from Dick and Mac McDonald’s
restaurant in San Bernardino, California to a nationwide corporation headed by
Ray Kroc. From an ethical standpoint, I submit that both the McDonald brothers
and Kroc come out as less than salubrious.
With regard to Dick McDonald, his incessant “no-saying” to
Kroc’s suggestions for improvements and expansion left Kroc in a strangle-hold
of sorts. This is most evident when Dick held to the 1.5% going to Kroc in
spite of the fact that Ray could not cover his costs. Excessive inflexibility
in a contract puts it under severe stress, and few people would blame Kroc for
turning to the real estate under the franchised stores for not only needed funds,
but also some control. In short, the McDonalds brothers should have
renegotiated the contract at Kroc’s request.
By implication, a political leader who clutches at control
at the expense of permitting even adjustment in public policy or the
governmental system itself to take account of a changing society unknowingly
risks losing the control so ardently desired. Even continued refusals to work
with other political parties in a legislature can spell defeat at the next
election for the party in power. Like gel being squeezed in a hand, the stuff
will slip through the fingers if the pressure is too much.
With regard to Ray Kroc, his refusal to act on his oral
promise that the McDonalds corporation would pay the brothers a royalty of 1%
in perpetuity is unethical. So too is his insistence that the McDonalds name be
removed from the brothers’ original McDonalds restaurant. The brothers wanted
to retain that particular restaurant so they could give it to their employees. The
McDonalds corporation would have had control of that location, so I suspect
Kroc’s motive was to be rid of the brothers, given the tension in the
relationship when Kroc was under their control. Again we see that the brothers’
tight grip on control, against virtually any changes in the restaurants, worked
against even the brothers’ own interests, which included being able to retain
their own name in the restaurant they managed in San Bernardino. In short, it
pays to work with people in such a way that there is some give and take, even
and I would say especially if a contract gives someone the right to rigidly
maintain total control. Smallness has a
way of losing, eventually.
