Quote:
| Originally Posted by Unregistered As far as splitting branches, history has shown that greater coverage always leads to growth. If you have a 200 car office and you split it, you'll get two 150 car offices in time. It happens regularly. So, splitting branches is definitely a way to grow. |
But erac tends to open up these new offices in a coverage area that already exists for another branch. They are not really establishing much growth when they simply open up in an area that they already cover as a company. Branch mitosis must be one of those ideas that look great on paper, but looks like crap in practice. Splitting branches does not yield those growth results most of the time these days from what I saw and from what I read. All erac accomplishes by doing that is to decrease the commision of the managers of the pre-existing branches and giving a miniscule commision to the new manager that takes over the new branch. The more experienced manager gets pissed and the new one will be pissed once they get over the initial excitement of being promoted and realize what happened. This sounds more like a way to decrease the amount of the commision the company has to pay out rather than a chance to provide an opportunity.
If a new branch opens in an area that is already being serviced by another location, you're not going to see growth of both those offices. If they never opened the new branch up to begin with, the original office would see all those new customers that would comprise the growth they are hoping on. By splitting offices, Andy still rakes in the money regardless of the locations, but the employees bring in less. They end up competing for the same business, stealing deals and encroaching on each other's pickup territitory. When a company preaches teamwork and employee satisfaction and then follows up that promise with bullshit like this, all they accomplish is the creation of a system that guarantees them to upset and lose quality employees.