I ran across an interesting situation last week that could have been handled several ways.

It seems there were two individuals that had applied for a franchise. The franchisor's initial evaluation was positive. The candidates' background was positive. They had several years of experience successfully running a non-competing business.

When it came time to evaluate their FranchiZe Profile scores, the franchisor was concerned. While we evaluated Candidate A as eventually performing at an "Average" level, she felt that, based on the candidate's history and her impressions of "Candidate A" the candidate would be a good franchisee. She felt that since her impressions and the candidate's profile scores were inconsistent, the FranchiZe Profile must be wrong.

There were three areas of Candidate A's score that she was concerned about. I'll first discuss the candidate's score on the three dimension in questions, then explore why the franchisor felt there were inconsistencies, and finally relate how the franchisor reconciled the inconsistencies and the final result.

The first area of concern was Candidate A's score on the Independence scale. The usual target range for Independence is a score of 56 to 72 which is similar to scores of franchisees that are somewhat entrepreneurial, but at the same time, enjoy the structure that a well run franchise offers.

Candidate A meanwhile scored an 8 - one of the lowest scores I've ever seen. This is the kind of score you would typically expect from an employee that needs a lot of supervision.

The second area of concern was the candidate's low level of Drive or Work Ethic. Franchisees that perform in the top 25% typically have scores that range from 77 to 100. With a score of only 57, we would expect Candidate A to have a work ethic similar to the bottom 25% of franchisees. One's that need continual prodding.

The third area of concern was Candidate A's score similar to a moderate introvert. Ideally franchisees, especially in a retail environment, need to be extroverts. In other words, someone that really enjoys dealing with a lot of people. Candidate A's score of 64 was just below the "Average" franchisee's score. Ideally, franchisees that score 77 and higher on the Social Orientation scale are targeted because they tend to perform in the top 25%.

Why the apparent inconsistency? This candidate, along with Candidate B, were partners in another retail business that did fairly well. On the surface then, you would think that there was something wrong with the profile. However, when we looked at Candidate B's scores, even to the untrained eye it was immediately apparent what was happening. In two of the three areas that Candidate A was weak, Candidate B was quite strong.

Social Orientation was the one area where the partners didn't complement each other. It turned out not to be important in that one particular type of business they had been successful in. Their work day duties actually removed them from most of the face to face interaction typically seen in a retail environment.

Another positive finding was that in those areas where Candidate B was weak, Candidate A had strength.

The other day I heard back about from the franchisor. When she discussed these results with the candidates, it was apparent that over the years, the candidates had learned to work with each other's strengths - either consciously or unconsciously.

The upshot was that after delving deeper into the relationship between the partners she discovered that the inconsistency between the profile scores and her impressions were real. But because she approached the candidates with some preconceived notions (and who doesn't?), those preconceptions stood in the way of an accurate assessment. We all have preconceptions about people early in relationships. And it's often reinforced subconsciously by our behavior. We see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.

Now, rather than rejecting the candidates because neither one separately had what it takes to perform much above average, they were accepted because the two together make one great candidate.

Plus, the franchisor has a much better idea on where to focus training for each person. It would be foolish to offer the same training to both candidates. Far better to focus on those areas where the candidate will benefit the most.

The moral of the story? Profile each partner (silent or active) and compare the two. Is the potential there for the partnership to gel into a cohesive whole? Do they have what it takes to be great franchisees?

Delving deeper into each aspect of the partnership could be the best investment you make in a franchise candidate.