The organizational development, since the Industrial Revolution, has been a factor of innovation and promoter of increased network organizations, always a social perspective.
Trust is a fundamental and necessary means that combat the extent that reduces the uncertainty generates cooperation solves problems and allows for innovative solutions.
Moreira (2007) in their extensive literature review considers that the fight to limit the occurrence of opportunism is a key factor for the interorganizational cooperation to succeed.
Franchising provides a new means of achieving regional and local development from a demographic, social, environmental and economic point-of-view. As an alternative to traditional organizations, those chains are the way to comprehensive training for management personnel, the quality and quantity of the grass-roots recruitment, the all-round training and learning system, the establishment of a standardized performance appraisal system, and the optimization of the incentive system, all of which can promote franchising chain business. Commitment is the key of new organizations system.
2.1 From the Organizational Networking to Success Factors
The network concept assumes that the franchisor can expand your network by establishments / own units or through franchised units.
In other words, in organizational terms can opt for a system where there is hierarchy or by a hybrid system between the hierarchy and the market (franchising).
Ebers (1999) e Cropper et al. (2010) note the emergence of network organizations as a clear and promising solution to the disadvantages presented by the hierarchical integrations or market.
But the dilemma seems to persist for the tasks which should be the internal position (hierarchy) and what subject to appeal to the market.
Thus, the economic function of a network is better understood as a moral relationship of trust, social capital as a “group of individual agents that share standards or informal values than those necessary human resources” (Fukuyama, 2000, p.293). However, “companies cannot organize their core functions in all markets to compete with everyone,” as would be generated, higher transaction costs” (Fukuyama, 2000, p.291). Coordinate strong degree of decentralization in organizations depends then networking, “a form of spontaneous order that emerges as a result of the interactions of decentralized actors, yet not created by any formal authority ” (Fukuyama, 2000, p. 291).
In order to realize that results arising from operating in network level, we have to start on the path leading us the notion that an ongoing analysis of developments in the network (and not a point observation) will allow us to consider any results of cooperation in interorganizational network because this is an organizational form for long-term, and thus has to be on the table not the immediate results of the network but the fruits of a fruitful relationship for longevity that can reach. Simultaneously, a network level is guided by not static in form and property relations and, above all, in human relations an ongoing process that requires continuous observation if we really want to see the results (Shane, 1996, p.216-383).
Both academic theory and organizational development show a reduction of the scale of enterprises, whose hierarchies are being replaced by networks, which indicates how radicals have been changes in the environment and the necessary impact on the adaptation of organizations in terms of their attempts structure.
These aim, however, more flexibility, less bureaucracy and more innovation, and technological progress both the threat - fits or languishes - as an opportunity increasingly available to a growing number of individuals and organizations.
So either the size of a company or organization or its organization in network and its performance requires, on the basis of its success, the implementation and integration of management practices and greater relevance in structure human recourses.
The implementation of these practices may be dependent on certain contextual factors.