Chili's Wants to Turn General Managers into Owners, and It Could Reshape Company-Operated QSR

The most expensive problem in the restaurant industry right now is not food costs or labor rates. It is the general manager. Chains are losing them faster than they can develop replacements, and no bonus structure or title change has fixed the problem. Now Chili's is studying whether the answer is to stop treating GMs like employees and start treating them like owners.

In a March 2026 interview with Nation's Restaurant News, Chili's CEO Kevin Hochman revealed the company is actively exploring a GM ownership and incentive model inspired by Texas Roadhouse's famous "managing partner" structure. The timeline is "at least one to two years out," but the direction is clear. Hochman wants to fundamentally change how Chili's unit-level leaders relate to the business they run.

If Chili's executes this, it will not be a footnote in casual dining history. It will be a blueprint that every major company-operated chain will be forced to examine.

What Texas Roadhouse Actually Built

Before understanding what Chili's is studying, you need to understand why Texas Roadhouse is worth studying.

The managing partner model at Texas Roadhouse is not a clever PR story. It is a precisely engineered financial structure. GMs invest $25,000 of their own capital into the restaurant they operate. In return, they receive approximately 10% of that location's annual profits on top of their base salary. When a unit is performing well, total annual compensation regularly lands between $100,000 and $200,000, with top performers exceeding that range.

The personal investment is not incidental to the model. It is the model. An operator who has written a $25,000 check from their own bank account thinks differently about a light that stays on all night or a table that turns 30 seconds slower than it should. Ownership psychology is real, and Texas Roadhouse has industrialized it.

The retention results speak directly. Texas Roadhouse consistently posts some of the lowest GM turnover numbers in the industry. In an environment where QSR and casual dining chains routinely see 40% to 50% annual management turnover, Texas Roadhouse operates in a different reality. Long-tenured GMs develop deep community ties, mentorship pipelines for hourly workers, and institutional knowledge that simply cannot be bought on the open market.

That stability compounds. A GM who has run the same location for eight years knows which suppliers show up late, which menu items spike on Friday nights, and which employees have the potential to become shift leads. That knowledge is worth more than any centralized training program.

Why This Matters More Right Now

The GM shortage is the quiet crisis that is widening the gap between high-performing chains and struggling ones. It does not generate the headlines that minimum wage increases or delivery commissions do, but operators know it is the real bottleneck.

The National Restaurant Association's 2026 State of the Industry report found the industry still faces a structural talent deficit at the management level. The pipeline problem runs deep: fewer people are entering restaurant management as a career path, and the ones who do often leave within two to three years. Base salary competition has helped at the margins, but it has not solved retention.

The math is brutal. Replacing a GM costs an estimated $15,000 to $25,000 in recruiting, onboarding, and productivity loss, depending on the market and the complexity of the unit. A chain with 1,000 company-operated locations running 40% annual GM turnover is burning $60 million to $100 million per year just to stay in place. That is before accounting for the sales erosion that follows a management transition.

Profit sharing directly addresses the retention equation. If a GM is earning $150,000 in combined salary and profit share at a well-run location, the switching cost of leaving jumps dramatically. A competitor would need to offer not just a matching salary but the full value of the ownership stake, which is tied to a specific unit's performance history. It becomes very hard to poach.

What Hochman Found When He Arrived

Kevin Hochman took over Chili's in 2022, and what he found was not a brand problem. It was an execution problem. Nearly 40% of Chili's restaurants had leaky roofs. Not a metaphor. Actual structural maintenance deferrals that signaled years of underinvestment in the physical plants where operators were expected to build great guest experiences.

The team fixed the fundamentals before marketing. That sequencing mattered. Chili's spent two years shoring up operations, simplifying the menu, and investing in its physical plants before it leaned into advertising. The result is visible in the numbers: same-store sales growth of 8.6%, a two-year stack of 43% growth, and revenue approaching $5 billion, up from roughly $3 billion when the turnaround began.

Those numbers give Hochman credibility when he talks about investing in GMs. The business is performing. Now the question is how to lock in the people responsible for that performance.

The Structural Challenge Hochman Has to Solve

Copying Texas Roadhouse is not a copy-paste operation. Chili's faces real constraints that a public company has to manage carefully.

The first is protecting existing compensation. You cannot ask current GMs to take base salary cuts in exchange for profit sharing. That would crater morale and accelerate the very departures you are trying to prevent. Any new model has to layer the ownership component on top of existing structures, at least for current employees.

The second is shareholder economics. Texas Roadhouse is a public company, but its managing partner model has been baked into its financial story for decades. Investors understand it and price it accordingly. Chili's parent Brinker International would need to carefully frame any shift in GM compensation as an investment in retention and performance, not a profit give-away. The good news is that the performance case is easy to make: Texas Roadhouse's unit economics consistently outperform the casual dining peer group, and the managing partner model is widely credited as a structural reason why.

The third is operational complexity. Not every Chili's unit has the same profit profile. A suburban location in a low-cost market generates very different economics than a high-rent urban unit. Designing a profit-sharing model that feels fair across the portfolio, and that incentivizes GMs to actually drive profitability rather than cut corners, requires real actuarial and operational design work.

Hochman's team is building infrastructure to support this evolution. A new P&L tool is launching as part of a broader Oracle system upgrade, giving restaurant managers deeper financial visibility into their own unit performance. That is not just an administrative upgrade. It is a prerequisite for ownership thinking. A GM who cannot see their unit's P&L in real time cannot manage it like an owner.

What This Would Actually Mean for the Industry

Here is the scenario worth paying attention to: Chili's rolls out a managing partner-style program over the next two to three years, retention improves measurably, and unit-level performance tightens. Then the case study exists.

At that point, every major company-operated chain has to answer the same question their institutional investors and franchisee competitors will be asking: why are you not doing this?

Franchise systems have always had the ownership advantage baked in. Franchisees invest capital, own the risk, and capture the upside. That alignment is why franchise operators often outperform company-operated units even with identical brand support. A managing partner model for company-operated units tries to replicate that psychology without ceding equity in the real estate or brand.

McDonald's, Burger King, and similar systems have tens of thousands of franchise locations precisely because the model works. For brands that want to retain company ownership of their units, the Chili's experiment offers a different path: keep the real estate and brand on your balance sheet, but share enough of the economics with the people running the stores that they behave like owners rather than salaried managers.

The beverage and premium-menu strategies that have driven Chili's recent sales surge will not sustain themselves without stable, experienced management at the unit level. You cannot run a $5 billion brand on a revolving door of 26-year-old GMs still learning the ropes.

What Operators Should Watch

For independent observers and competing chains, the metrics to track over the next two to four years are straightforward. Watch Brinker's annual reports for any change in language around GM compensation structure. Watch same-store sales stability at Chili's locations as tenure data emerges. Watch management turnover disclosures, which Brinker may begin reporting more explicitly if the program becomes a competitive differentiator they want to amplify.

The Texas Roadhouse model did not emerge fully formed. It was refined over years, with the personal investment threshold and profit percentage calibrated through experience. Hochman is being honest about the timeline, and that honesty is itself a signal. This is not a press release strategy. It is a genuine operational bet on what drives long-term performance.

The GM shortage is not going away. Pay rates are up across the industry, and they have not solved turnover. The next variable in the equation is ownership. Chili's is betting that it is the missing piece, and if the numbers eventually prove them right, the rest of the industry will follow.

The question is not whether the managing partner model works. Texas Roadhouse already answered that. The question is whether a company operating at Chili's scale, with Chili's constraints, can adapt it. That answer is still being written.