Children or siblings often enter the business with inherited legitimacy but undefined roles. When expectations and responsibilities are not formally articulated, underperformance becomes difficult to assess, and legitimacy is easily contested. The result: ambiguity, declining performance, and internal tension.

Many family businesses mistakenly assume that blood ties ensure shared purpose. The opposite is often true. Sibling rivalry - particularly where parental favouritism, gender dynamics, or birth order are perceived to influence opportunity - can fracture governance and hinder decision-making. Examples abound, where siblings jockey for power, guided more by personal loyalties than commercial strategy.

Much like managing an underperforming child, delaying difficult conversations about succession breeds dysfunction. Whilst consensus is generally a positive process in decision making, consensus-driven governance often creates bottlenecks and indecision, impairing business responsiveness. Delay not only undermines leadership credibility but also signals indecision to external stakeholders.

When roles are awarded based on surname rather than merit, the ripple effect is cultural decay. Non-family executives disengage, meritocratic systems falter, and performance becomes secondary to family politics. This “two-tier culture” often precipitates the departure of high-performing non-family talent.

The consequences of poor succession are not limited to the boardroom. Sibling conflict or exclusion can lead to years of estrangement, litigation, or intergenerational dysfunction. The emotional dislocation felt by family members who are passed over, or pushed out, can permanently damage relationships if not managed with empathy and structure.

Set the rules before you need them. Establish clear entry standards, performance metrics, and reporting lines for family members - early. Doing so fosters transparency and allows future leaders to build legitimacy through performance.

Incorporate family councils, advisory boards, and protocols that distinguish ownership, management, and family domains (for example, the Lansberg-Gersick Three-Circle Model). Structures that allow difficult conversations to occur outside of family dinners create essential boundary clarity.

Utilise structured tools such as 360-degree feedback, external assessments, and trial roles before appointing successors. Competency -not proximity- must guide selection. Role clarity and strategic delegation can reduce friction and improve performance.

When a family member must be moved out or reallocated, do so with care. Consider project roles, sabbaticals, or governance appointments as dignified alternatives. Communicate the decision as a professional - not personal judgment, supported by a robust feedback trail.

Embed values of meritocracy in policy and practice. Hold all family and non-family members to the same standard. Succession must affirm that shared ownership does not entitle one to leadership.

Acknowledge the emotional dimensions of succession. Use family facilitators or governance experts to mediate disputes. Allow time and space for relational healing post-transition. The business and the family both deserve preservation.

When succession planning is deferred until the founder’s death, the vacuum invites chaos. Unclear mandates and unresolved tensions can implode even the healthiest balance sheets.

Appointing the eldest child or the most insistent sibling can compromise enterprise value. Leadership should be earned, not inherited.

When family members operate outside the structures imposed on other employees, it signals a breakdown in governance. This can cascade into broader dysfunction.

Without conscious acknowledgement of past grievances or familial wounds, succession will carry the burden of unresolved history. Emotionally intelligent leadership recognises that what is unspoken often governs outcomes.