The common problem
Any growing organisation faces the coordination challenges research on organisational design and growth describes — information that needs to travel further, decisions that need to move faster than informal familiarity can support, standards that were maintained personally now needing to scale beyond what personal attention can cover. Multi-site growth adds a specific complication on top of this general pattern: physical separation. Coordination mechanisms that depend on proximity — overhearing a conversation, noticing a problem visually, correcting a small deviation before it becomes a habit — simply do not function across sites in the way they function within one. The organisation is not just larger; parts of it cannot see each other in the way a single-site organisation’s parts can.
How it presents in a small multi-site business
Consider a business operating two locations, the second opened relatively recently to extend reach into a new area. The common early-stage pattern is drift: the newer site, without direct daily exposure to how the original site actually operates, develops its own variations — some deliberate adaptations to local conditions, many simply the accumulated result of different people making different reasonable judgment calls in the absence of the informal, unwritten context the original site’s team absorbed simply by being present when the business was founded. This drift is rarely dramatic in any single instance; it is cumulative, and often not fully visible until the two sites need to coordinate directly — serving a shared client, reporting into the same system, or being compared against each other — at which point the divergence becomes obvious and, sometimes, disruptive.
At this early stage, the core issue is usually knowledge transfer rather than governance: the original site holds substantial operating knowledge that was never made explicit, because it never needed to be while everyone learned by proximity. A second site cannot absorb what was never written down, regardless of how much formal documentation is provided, because in practice such documentation typically captures only a portion of what the original site’s team actually does day to day — the visible procedures rather than the accumulated judgment behind them. This is not a criticism of the documentation effort; it reflects a genuine limit on how much tacit, proximity-learned knowledge can be converted into an explicit document within a reasonable amount of time and effort.
How it presents in a large, mature multi-site network
A business with many established locations faces a related but structurally different version of the same underlying challenge. By this stage, knowledge transfer at the point of opening a new site is usually a solved, or at least well-practised, problem — the organisation has systems, training and documentation built up over multiple prior openings. What replaces the transfer problem is a monitoring and aggregation problem: with many sites, average performance across the network can look entirely healthy while individual sites vary widely, some performing far above and others far below what the average suggests, with the underperformance effectively hidden by the aggregate. A network average, in this context, functions less like a useful summary and more like a number that can conceal exactly the variation leadership most needs to see.
This stage also introduces a genuine governance question that smaller multi-site businesses rarely face acutely: how much local variation should be tolerated in the name of adapting sensibly to local conditions, versus how much consistency should be enforced in the name of a coherent brand, product or service standard. Research into decision rights suggests this tension sits at one of the most common bottlenecks organisations encounter — the boundary between central and local authority — and multi-site businesses experience it not as a one-time design decision but as a continuous, recurring negotiation across every new site and every operational update to existing ones.
What explains the variation
The severity and shape of multi-site coordination challenges depend heavily on how standardised the underlying activity is. A business built around a highly replicable, well-specified format — where each site performs a narrowly defined, consistent set of activities — can tolerate more distance between sites and central oversight, because there is simply less room for meaningful, undocumented variation to develop in the first place. A business where each site’s work is more judgment-intensive or locally adapted by necessity — serving genuinely different local markets, dealing with different regulatory environments, requiring more on-the-ground discretion — faces a harder coordination problem, because standardisation itself is a less complete answer, and more of what makes each site work well genuinely does need to be local, tacit knowledge.
Geographic and cultural distance between sites compounds this further. Sites within the same country, similar regulatory environment and similar culture face a smaller version of the coordination challenge than sites spanning different countries, languages, or business norms, where even well-documented standards can be interpreted or applied differently without anyone intending divergence. The number of sites also interacts with this non-linearly: coordinating three sites is a materially different problem from coordinating thirty, not simply a threefold-to-tenfold increase in the same challenge, because the central function’s capacity to maintain direct visibility into each site degrades as the number grows, forcing a shift from direct oversight toward indirect, metric-based monitoring — which reintroduces the aggregation problem described above.
Ownership structure adds a further layer of variation that pure headcount- or site-count-based models tend to underweight. A network of wholly owned sites, however geographically dispersed, retains at least the option of direct central authority over every location, even if that authority is exercised imperfectly in practice. A network that mixes owned and independently operated sites — franchised, licensed or partnered locations — faces a structurally different version of the coordination problem, because central authority over those sites is contractual and commercial rather than direct, and the tools available for aligning practice are correspondingly more limited. The underlying coordination challenge does not disappear when ownership is mixed; it simply moves from a question of internal management to a question of how much alignment a set of contractual relationships can realistically sustain.
For how this pattern presents in other kinds of organisation, see other sectors.
Questions worth considering
- How much of what makes this organisation’s existing sites successful has actually been made explicit, versus how much still exists only as knowledge held informally by the people who were present when it was learned?
- Does current reporting or performance monitoring show meaningful variation between individual sites, or only an aggregate that could be concealing that variation?
- Where does this organisation currently draw the line between local adaptation and central consistency — and has that line been set deliberately, or has it simply emerged from how each individual site happened to develop?
This perspective is part of Growth.
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.