Give local judgement a job.
Central standards work best when the person running the pub knows which decisions they can make.
By Joshua Matheson · Published 14 September 2026
Responsibility needs decision-making room.
An operator can be held responsible for performance while having limited control over the offer, purchasing, prices or local activity. That tension needs to be understood before anyone prescribes a fix. The practical question is simple: who can make the decision that would change the outcome?
Decide the boundaries explicitly.
A group needs consistency where inconsistency creates risk or confusion. But consistency does not require every venue to have an identical answer to its local market. Agree the non-negotiable standards, the choices an operator can make and the evidence needed for an exception. Write that down in language people can use during a working week.
Give experimentation a review point.
Local freedom is more useful when it includes accountability. A trial should have a purpose, an agreed budget or resource limit, a measure and a date to review it. That creates a way to learn without turning each disagreement into a contest between the centre and the venue.
Make support flow both ways.
Field teams can bring knowledge across venues, but they also need to carry useful local evidence back into central decisions. If the same issue appears at several pubs, ask whether the problem sits in the support model or the shared offer. Repeating an instruction is not always the same as solving the problem.
The management question.
At the next review, choose one unresolved issue. Identify who owns the outcome, who controls the decision and who holds the information. If those three people are disconnected, start by repairing that relationship. Explore multi-site hospitality support.
Start with the real issue.
Tell me about the venue, your agreement, the pressure and the result you need.