When Family Businesses Misjudge CEO Successions. And how to fix it.

This article was first published in the FFI Practitioner, August 19, 2026; https://ffipractitioner.org/when-family-businesses-misjudge-ceo-successions-and-how-to-fix-it/

Every family business reaches a moment when leadership choices determine whether legacy will endure. That inflection point is soon arriving for a large cohort of family businesses globally. According to a  recent survey of 300 family business executives, nearly 8 in 10 expect a CEO transition within the next decade, and 42% foresee this shift within the next three to five years.

While not every family business passes the baton to a family member, the same survey indicates that among firms generating over $1 billion in revenue, 32% expect a family member to become CEO. Additionally, 47% of firms with revenues below $500 million favor a family member. 

Identifying and appointing the right successor from within the family is therefore a critical decision. Mismanaged successions can have far-reaching implications, from erosion of trust among shareholders to damage to the family’s legacy and reputation. Based on my experience, I believe that most family business successions fail because they confuse backward-looking proxies such as birth order, seniority, lineage, or perceived legitimacy, with leadership readiness. Instead, what they need is a lens grounded in judgment, competence, and demonstrated capability in selecting the next CEO from within the family.

Four Mistakes Family Firms Make When Naming a Family CEO

As a researcher on family enterprises and an advisor to multigenerational business families, I have observed four recurring mistakes in succession planning. 

1. Favoring lineage over leadership readiness: Families often elevate successors based on inheritance, assuming bloodline confers legitimacy and that legitimacy precedes competence. While that can give successors positional authority, a lack of capability can lead to strategic missteps, internal fragmentation, and loss of control. 

The Gucci family drama is a classic illustration of this mistake. Aldo Gucci, believed that his nephew Maurizio was the most credible option from within the family to lead Gucci. Aldo actively coaxed him into the business. The logic was lineage preservation, not leadership readiness. Once in control, Maurizio pursued an aggressive repositioning toward high-end luxury without sufficient financial discipline. Prolonged internal disputes and mounting debt eventually forced him to sell his stake to external investors, ending the family's ownership of Gucci.

2. Using seniority or implicit hierarchy as a shortcut for leadership selection: In many family firms, the eldest, the most visible, or the longest-involved family member is assumed to be the natural successor, often without a rigorous comparison of alternatives. Seniority and proximity to the business may signal commitment, but they do not guarantee strategic judgment, emotional steadiness, or the ability to lead a complex organization. More importantly, when the basis of selection is not explicitly defined, leadership transitions lose institutional clarity.

The succession dynamics at Reliance Industries illustrate this risk. After Dhirubhai Ambani's death in 2002, the absence of a formally articulated, capability-based succession framework allowed assumptions about authority to harden into conflict between his sons, Mukesh and Anil. It resulted in a negotiated partition of the empire rather than a strategically designed transition. The split fragmented strategic focus and shareholder value for years. 

3. Prioritizing legacy alignment instead of strategic need: What many owners underestimate is how fundamentally the CEO role changes across generations. The capabilities that built the business are rarely the same ones required to scale it. It can also be tempting to select a successor who resembles the founder or incumbent. Familiar temperament feels reassuring. But resemblance is not aptness. 

In an Indian consumer goods company, the founder increasingly aligned with his son-in-law, whose command-driven style and temperament resembled his own. While remaining skeptical of his more professionally oriented son. However, the business had begun to outgrow its founder-led model. As it expanded, it required greater coordination across functions, professionalized governance, and clearer decision rights. 

The son-in-law's leadership style became a constraint in this next phase. Tensions escalated, decision-making fragmented, and parallel power centers emerged. Despite the presence of capable family members, the absence of alignment between leadership style and the firm's evolving needs ultimately led to a structural split of the business 

4. Not laying out the next chapter: Most families begin succession conversations by debating names. The more strategic place to begin is to first gain clarity on what the next chapter of the business will look like. Is the firm entering consolidation or rapid growth? Is it moving toward professionalization and institutional governance? How will digital disruption, global expansion, or new competitors reshape the business? Only once that mandate is defined should candidates be assessed as each phase demands a different kind of leadership. 

The leadership transition at Tata Group illustrates this risk. When Cyrus Mistry was appointed chairman in 2012, he pursued what he read as the firm's need: restructuring underperforming businesses, rationalizing the portfolio, and tightening capital discipline. However, this direction clashed with the expectations of the Tata Trusts, which placed greater weight on legacy continuity and the preservation of the group's institutional identity. The resulting conflict led to Mistry's removal in 2016. Without that shared definition of the next chapter, even a capable leader can be set up to fail. (Mathew, 2024; Jhunjhunwala, 2020).

The question, then, is how can family businesses move beyond comfort and similarity to identify the leader best equipped for the enterprise’s future.

Be Strategic about Choosing the Next CEO

Keeping the mistakes in mind, how should you move ahead and pick the right CEO? How do you assess if they have the qualities the firm needs in the future? 

Leadership assessment frameworks are abundant. Firms such as Korn Ferry offer validated competency architectures and psychometric tools designed to evaluate executive potential. Major advisory firms publish governance-focused succession guides for family enterprises. Academic research has even proposed formal succession scorecards to structure decision criteria across generations. Most of these frameworks do not directly address the distinctive decision biases that operate inside family firms such as familiarity or birth order. 

Based on my work, here are four dimensions that can help firms make the right succession decision. These dimensions cannot be measured through aspiration. They must be observed in behavior. While most succession conversations focus on readiness, these dimensions focus on risk.

1. Institutional Courage: In family firms, the hardest decisions are relational. For that, you need a leader who has institutional courage- the capacity to act in the enterprise’s long-term interest, even when doing so disrupts family comfort. This surfaces on many occasions, when capital must be redirected away from a legacy division run by a relative, when a long-serving executive must be replaced, or when short-term distributions must yield to reinvestment. Without institutional courage, a CEO becomes a mediator of expectations rather than a steward of value.

This dimension is best assessed through the candidate’s track record. Leaders should look back at moments when enterprise interest conflicted with family preference and examine how the candidate responded. For example, if a division led by a family member was consistently underperforming and the company had to decide whether to restructure it or let it continue out of deference to the relative running it, did the candidate defer, delay, or act? As part of the evaluation, the board or an independent advisor could ask senior non-family executives: “When pressure rises, does this individual protect organizational performance or family relationships? Can you recall a time when this person made a decision that was right for the company but difficult for the people who lead it?”

2. Strategic Fit: A leader’s competence isn’t static. It is context dependent. A successor who excelled in an era of opportunistic expansion may not thrive in a period requiring disciplined integration. A leader skilled at operational optimization may struggle when reinvention becomes imperative. So, the choice cannot be based on who has excelled so far but who is best equipped to lead the firm into its next chapter. 

Businesses should start by defining their most critical strategic priorities for the coming phase. And evaluate whether the candidate has demonstrated depth in those areas. For example, “The company is undergoing pivotal digital transformation. Your internal capabilities are weak, and senior leaders are resisting the changes. What would be your first move? How would you decide what shouldn’t be digitized?”

What matters is pattern recognition, not polish.

3. Judgment Maturity: Founder intuition often dominates first-generation enterprises. That intuition cannot be inherited. But what you can assess in a potential successor is their decision-making and judgment architecture. Strong candidates demonstrate the ability to integrate dissent, weigh imperfect data, and move with conviction without becoming impulsive. 

The evaluation should focus on reasoning rather than outcomes. Look at how they handled decisions when stakes were high or when information was incomplete. What were the trade-offs? Did they lean into family expectations or the enterprise’s needs? Examine the logic they deployed at the time. Were they willing to revise their decision when evidence changed or when they had new information? Past episodes involving capital allocation trade-offs, market downturns, or operational crises are especially revealing, because they expose how judgment functions when the pressure is real rather than hypothetical. 

4. Boundary Authority: An internal CEO needs to clearly distinguish between family forum and board forum, engage independent directors without defensiveness, and lead professional executives without feeling threatened by their expertise. In many family firms, successors who lack confidence in their own authority tend to centralize decisions, sideline capable non-family leaders, or blur the line between family sentiment and business governance. It also means preventing family disagreements from leaking into organizational processes.

This dimension is best evaluated by examining how the candidate has navigated governance boundaries in practice. Some questions to assess them include: How have they handled situations where a family member's preferences conflicted with a board decision? How do senior non-family executives describe the experience of working with them? Can the candidate clearly define where family input ends and management authority begins? 

A successor who cannot draw these boundaries before appointment is unlikely to hold them under pressure. 

Choose the Future- Not the Familiar

Internal succession is one of the few moments when a family can consciously redesign its leadership logic. It is also one of the most emotionally charged. The candidates are not strangers on a shortlist. They are sons, daughters, siblings, in-laws. The weight of relationships, history, and obligation is real, and no framework can eliminate it entirely. 

But that is precisely why rigor matters. When selection criteria remain implicit, emotion fills the gap, and the resulting choices tend to reflect the family's past rather than the enterprise's future. The shift required is not from affection to detachment. It is from assumption to deliberation: clearly defining what the next chapter demands, assessing candidates against those demands, and making the basis of selection transparent to the family and the institution alike.

The families that endure across generations make difficult choices well, with clarity, with courage, and with the enterprise's future as the anchor.

Tata Group’s next chairman: The next chapter must come before the next leader

This article was first published in Forbes India on August 12, 2026; https://www.forbesindia.com/article/upfront/column/tata-groups-next-chairman-the-next-chapter-must-come-before-the-next-leader/2997016/1

Succession is often treated as a question of finding the next person. In large family businesses and business groups, the more important question is what the institution will need from its next leader. That answer changes with time. A leader who is right for one phase may not necessarily be the person best equipped to lead the next.

N. Chandrasekaran’s decision not to seek another term as chairman of Tata Sons offers an opportunity to ask that question of one of India’s most important business groups. This article is not about assessing the circumstances of Chandra’s decision or speculating about the individuals who may succeed him. It is about what Tata should look for in its next chairman, why alignment among its key stakeholders will be critical, and why the succession process should begin immediately if the Group wants a smooth transfer of leadership. 

Chandra was the right leader for his chapter

It is important to judge a leader in the context in which he takes charge. When Chandrasekaran became chairman of Tata Sons in 2017, the Group was emerging from a deeply difficult leadership episode following the removal of Cyrus Mistry. Tata Group needed stability, credibility, institutional continuity, and transparency in governance. Chandra brought decades of experience from within the Tata ecosystem, particularly through his leadership of TCS. He was a professional manager immersed in the Tata way. 

The Tata Group that Chandra leads today is very different from the Group of 2017. Its ambitions now extend across semiconductors, electronics manufacturing, aviation, electric mobility and other new businesses, alongside established businesses in technology, automobiles, steel and consumer products. Its global footprint is larger and its investments are increasingly capital intensive. Technology, geopolitics, global supply chains and changing regulations are becoming central to the Group’s strategic choices. The leadership requirements of the next phase are therefore likely to be different.

First decide what the next Tata should look like

This is where succession processes often go wrong. We begin by asking who should lead. Who is available? Who is trusted? Who knows the organisation? Those questions matter, but they should come later.

The first question should be: What does Tata need to accomplish in its next chapter?

Where should the Group place its largest bets? How much capital should go into new businesses? Which businesses need acceleration and which need greater discipline? How should Tata Sons balance the autonomy of its operating companies with the need for strategic coherence? What should the relationship between Tata Sons, the Tata Trusts and the operating companies look like in the years ahead?

These are not simply questions for the incoming chairman. They are questions for the institution and its stakeholders.

The events surrounding Chandra’s reappointment make this especially important. His statement indicates that the Tata Trusts and the Tata Sons Nomination and Remuneration Committee and Board had recommended his extension. The proposal nevertheless did not receive unanimous Board support and remained unresolved for six months. Chandra has now chosen not to offer himself for reappointment. The larger lesson is not about one individual or one disagreement. It is about alignment.

A capable chairman can find it difficult to lead when the key stakeholders do not have a shared understanding of the institution’s direction. The next chairman should therefore not inherit an unresolved debate about the future. 

What will the next chairman need?

The next chairman will need strong strategic judgement. Tata is too large and diverse for growth to mean pursuing every opportunity. Someone will have to make choices about where capital and management attention can create enduring value.

Capital allocation will be equally important. Tata’s ambitions in new industries require patience and significant investment. The next chairman will have to balance the desire to build businesses of the future with financial discipline and a clear understanding of the returns such investments can eventually generate.

The Group will also need a genuinely global leader. Tata today operates in businesses shaped by technology, geopolitics, global supply chains and cross-border regulation. Understanding one industry will not be enough. The chairman will need to understand how different businesses fit into the larger portfolio and when the Group should act as a group rather than as a collection of companies.

There is another quality that may be even more important: knowing when to intervene and when to step back. Tata’s operating companies have strong professional leaders. The chairman should provide direction without centralising every decision. The ability to empower leaders while maintaining Group-level coherence is a significant leadership challenge.

And then there is continuity. The Tata Group has survived for more than 150 years because it has evolved without losing the values that give the institution its identity. In my earlier writing on Tata, I have argued that institutional memory is a strategic asset. It is not simply a record of what happened in the past. It shapes how people behave when there is no rulebook and when decisions have to be made under pressure.

The next chairman should understand that memory without becoming imprisoned by it. Continuity should provide the foundation for change, not become an argument against it.

The search should begin now

The Group has roughly six months before Chandra’s current term ends. That is useful transition time. It should not, however, become six more months of uncertainty.

Once the mandate is clear, the search for the successor should begin immediately, at a war footing. So that there is enough time for a meaningful handover. The incoming chairman should have an opportunity to work alongside Chandra, understand the Group’s strategic priorities, build relationships with key stakeholders and absorb the institutional knowledge that cannot be transferred through board papers. It is important for Chandra too to facilitate a smooth transition. One measure of a successful leader is not only what he achieves during his tenure, but how well he prepares the institution for the person who follows. 

The Tata Group now has an opportunity to make this transition a demonstration of good governance. It should use the remaining months not merely to find a person, but to clarify the direction, define the mandate and prepare the institution.

The next chairman should not be chosen simply to succeed Chandra. The person should be chosen to lead the Tata Group that comes after Chandra.

How Not To Destroy A Dynasty: Masterclass From The House Of Gucci

This article was first published in the Family Business United, June 29, 2026; https://www.familybusinessunited.com/post/how-not-to-destroy-a-dynasty-masterclass-from-the-house-of-gucci

Twenty-five years ago, in Singapore, I bought a Gucci canvas cross-body bag with money saved from overtime. It was a modest indulgence, earned through hard work, from a brand I knew was considered good. That bag has travelled to work and on holidays, and remains a favourite to this day, mainly for it’s appropriate size.

Then came Sara Gay Forden's The House of Gucci, and the bag in my cupboard quietly changed its meaning. All at once it felt invaluable, a small piece of a history far larger and far sadder than one could have imagined. The history of Gucci is a tragedy of a very particular kind, the kind that should make every business family stop and think.

On the morning of 27 March 1995, a well-dressed man climbed the steps of a building on Via Palestro in Milan and was shot three times in the back and once in the head. He was Maurizio Gucci, forty-six years old, the last of his family to lead the house that carried his name. The man who fired the gun had been hired for the job. The woman who arranged it, as the courts would later establish, was Patrizia Reggiani, Maurizio's former wife and the mother of his two daughters. She had once been the fiercest champion of his rise. In 1998 she was convicted and sentenced to twenty-nine years. The Italian press called her the “Black Widow”.

And yet the murder is not what lingers once the book is closed. What lingers is something quieter and far heavier. The brand survives today. It thrives. It is worth billions. Only, the family that created it doesn’t own it. Three generations built the house, and the third generation lost it. By the time the assassin arrived on Via Palestro, the company had already slipped out of Gucci hands.

Forden tells the story of one family. The lessons belong to every family that owns a business. There is an old saying that every business family secretly dreads, shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations. The Gucci saga is perhaps the most beautifully dressed proof that the saying is real. It is a pattern that repeats across families, across centuries, across continents. A pattern, unlike a curse, can be understood and broken, if only we are willing to study how it forms.

Why most dynasties fade by the third generation

Research across the world shows that only about a third of family businesses make it into the second generation, and barely one in ten survives into the third. Those numbers frighten every founder who reads them. They are not, however, handed down by fate. Family firms seldom die because the world has stopped wanting what they make. Customers were still queuing outside Gucci's Fifth Avenue stores even while the family was tearing itself apart in the courts. One observer noticed something telling, that the more sensational the headlines grew, the more shoppers walked in to buy. Family firms often die or family loses control of the firm because the family loses the ability to own itself and to govern itself.

John Ward, who did as much as anyone to build the modern study of family business, argued that the long life of a family firm is a matter of discipline. Families that endure plan their succession early, while there is still time to do it gracefully. They keep the roles of family, owner and manager from blurring into one. They put their governance in place during the years of calm, long before any storm arrives. Forden's book is, in effect, a long record of what happens when a gifted family does none of this. Read as a warning, it becomes one of the finest masterclasses imaginable in how to destroy a dynasty. So let us turn it the other way around, and read each act of ruin as a lesson in how to keep one alive.

First, the rise, because every fall begins with a gift

Guccio Gucci opened his house in Florence in 1921, a small leather-goods shop on a quiet street. The origin story has since become legend. As a young man he had worked as a porter and lift-boy at the Savoy Hotel in London, where he watched the monogrammed luggage of the wealthy pass through the lobby and resolved to make something just as fine for his own countrymen. He did exactly that. His craftsmanship in saddlery and luggage became the family's first and finest inheritance. In time he brought his sons into the firm, and after the war he divided the company among three of them, Aldo, Vasco and Rodolfo.

Here was familiness in its purest form, that special bundle of strengths a family brings to its firm when shared identity, trust and complementary talent come together into something no outsider can copy. Aldo was the engine. A marketing genius, he carried Gucci across the Atlantic and built a glittering empire that reached across America, Europe and Asia. He understood, better than anyone else in the family, that people did not buy a Gucci bag for the leather. They bought it for the feeling of carrying it. He pushed the family into perfume and into watches over his brothers' objections. And he gave them the image that should have become their constitution. “My family is the train”, he liked to say. “I am the engine. Without the train the engine is nothing, and without the engine the train does not move.” It is a lovely picture of how much they needed one another. The sorrow of the story is that the train forgot that it needed an engine.

Lesson one: the trap of dividing ownership equally

When Vasco died of cancer in 1974, leaving no children, Aldo and Rodolfo bought out his widow's stake and emerged as equal partners, fifty per cent each. On paper it looked like elegant symmetry. In practice it laid down a fault line that ran through everything that followed. The two halves were identical in size. Behind them lay contributions that were perceived very differently. Aldo had built the American business and much of the global one. Rodolfo, a former actor, had put in far less according to Aldo’s family, and he held precisely the same half. Aldo felt the imbalance keenly. Quietly, he began to steer profits into the perfume company, where he and his sons held the larger share, so that Rodolfo saw only a thin slice of the returns.

Resentment crept in from every side. Rodolfo blamed Aldo's restless expansion for the thin profits. Aldo's sons seethed that their uncle drew an equal half from an empire their father had built. Everyone felt cheated. No one felt heard. This is one of the oldest traps in family business, and one of the most misread. Equal and fair are two very different things. When a passive owner holds the same stake as the one who creates the value, the paperwork may call it just while every family dinner says otherwise. Scholars of socioemotional wealth remind us that families guard much more than money. They guard their pride, and their sense of having mattered. Wound that, and no dividend will ever heal it. The Guccis never built any way to revisit who owned what, and why. In Forden's telling, that frozen fifty-fifty shaped all that came after.

Lesson two: a next generation with no real role will create a destructive one

Few figures in the saga are as moving as Paolo Gucci. He was talented and restless, and by every account he was treated abominably. Working under his father Aldo, who was authoritarian and certain of his own genius, Paolo was handed a title and given no authority. “I was not allowed to do anything”, he complained. When he tried to start a line under his own name, the family that had stifled him closed ranks against him as one body. Aldo, who quarrelled endlessly with Rodolfo, instantly joined hands with him to crush the boy.

What does a cornered son do? Paolo handed evidence of his father's tax evasion to the American authorities. Aldo, the architect of the entire empire, was convicted and sent to prison. A son put his own father behind bars. Read that line again, slowly, and let its full weight settle on you. It is hard not to feel a flash of anger at Paolo, and just as hard to hold on to it. Who had made him this way? A family that gave him a famous surname and no room to be himself, a family that treated his hunger for dignity as an act of betrayal. The lesson is plain and unforgiving. The next generation will find a role in the business one way or another. The only choice a family really has is whether to give that role to them openly, or to force them to seize it in anger. Talent that is denied an honest outlet does not simply disappear. It festers, and then it turns.

Lesson three: keep the family, the owners and the managers in clear view

Many years ago, Renato Tagiuri and John Davis gave us the three-circle model, a simple and powerful way of seeing a family business as three overlapping groups, the family, the owners and the managers. One person may sit inside all three circles at once. The circles still remain distinct, and a family gets into trouble the moment it forgets which is which. The House of Gucci shows what happens when the circles fold into one another and no one can tell them apart any more.

Think of Patrizia Reggiani, long before she plotted a murder. In the early years she was genuinely good for Maurizio. She gave a timid young man the courage to stand up to a domineering father. “I knew he was weak”, she said, “but I was not weak. I pushed him so hard that he became president of Gucci.” Over time, though, her ambition found no proper home, and so it spilled into interference. She held no formal position in the company, yet she tried to run it through her husband, feeding his grievances against his uncle and his cousins, and measuring respect by who was offered champagne first at a party. Her appetite was unmistakable. She once said that she would rather “weep in a Rolls-Royce than be happy on a bicycle.” 

Most business families wrestle with similar questions. What is the rightful place of the son-in-law, the daughter-in-law, the person who marries into the family and the firm? Shutting them out is rarely the healthy answer. What works is clarity, with them and with everyone, about where ownership ends and management begins, and about how a marriage relates to both. A family that leaves these lines undrawn ends up negotiating its most intimate relationships through resentment. And resentment, as Gucci shows us, can turn deadly.

Lesson four: why control without grooming is a trap

Rodolfo loved his only son, and he failed him in the most ordinary way a loving father can. He never let him grow up. As one of Maurizio's associates put it, “Rodolfo gave him the castle and not the money to maintain it.” Rodolfo held on to every decision, trusted his son with almost nothing, and prepared no one to follow him. On his deathbed he confided his fear that money and power would change his boy. They did, for the simple reason that the boy had never been allowed to practise being a man.

So, when Maurizio finally took control, he held the largest single block of shares in the company and very little experience of running it. His vision was brilliant. He dreamed of a global luxury house with professional management, modern design and sophisticated marketing, which is more or less the company that non-family professionals would later build on the ruins he left behind. A vision, though, has to be carried out, and owning a company teaches a person nothing about running one. 

Maurizio managed, in the unsparing words of his own advisers, “by intuition”. He was charming and mercurial, a child in a sweet shop who wanted everything at once and understood almost nothing about cash flow. Within a few years a company that had been earning sixty million dollars was losing sixty million. “Intuition”, one adviser observed, “will carry you while business is good and will desert you the moment business turns bad.” 

Here is the lesson every owning family should write upon its heart. Ownership is something a family passes down to its children. The skill to run a great company is something each generation has to build for itself, or buy in honestly from people who already have it. To know what you are good at, and to bring in fine professionals for everything else, is one of the highest forms of stewardship a family can practise. Maurizio came to it too late, and he came to it on borrowed money.

Lesson five: build the rules of the family before the quarrels begin

Through the 1980s, Gucci became famous for its lawsuits rather than its loafers. There were criminal complaints over forged signatures, with civil suits piled on top of them. An eighty-year-old patriarch had his office boxed up and emptied overnight. Brother was set against brother, and cousin against cousin. In all of this there was no family constitution, no family council, no shareholders' agreement worth the name, and, most damaging of all, no neutral person to whom a dispute could be carried before it reached a courtroom.

It is hard not to compare this with the Cartiers, whose story has appeared in these pages before. As far back as 1906, old Alfred Cartier wrote a dispute-resolution clause into the firm's founding documents. If his sons ever fell out, the matter would go to a named arbiter. The Cartiers kept a family council at a time when most families kept only their quarrels. They were not spared every grief. They were spared the spectacle of destroying one another in public. The Guccis had built no such structure, and so every disagreement had only two places to go, into silence or into court. Families reach for litigation when they have built nothing better to reach for. A constitution, a family council, a forum where grievances can be aired and settled inside the family, the habit of mediation in place of a lawsuit, these are the load-bearing walls of a dynasty. They have to be raised in the sunshine, because no one can raise them in the middle of a storm.

The reckoning, and a bitter irony

The end arrived quietly, in a lawyer's office, with the stroke of a pen. Worn down by the family wars, Maurizio first joined hands with the Bahrain-based investment house Investcorp to buy out his relatives. It was the first time an outsider had ever held a meaningful block of the family's shares. Then, drowning in losses he could not manage, he sold his own remaining half. On 23 September 1993, in the offices of a Swiss bank in Lugano, surrounded by lawyers and financiers, Maurizio Gucci signed away the last of the family's stake. After more than seventy years, not one Gucci owned any part of Gucci. Eighteen months later he was dead.

Here lies the cruellest irony of the whole story. Once the feuding owners were gone, the professionals turned a near-bankrupt company, within a decade, into one of the most valuable luxury brands on earth, its sales climbing from a few hundred million dollars into the billions. Everything Maurizio had dreamed of came true. The global house, the professional management, the modern marketing, all of it arrived. It simply arrived for strangers, while the family watched from outside the gates. The craftsmanship of the first generation, the genius of the second and the dream of the third all lived on. The family that had carried them was simply no longer there. That is the true shape of shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves. The wealth does not always vanish into thin air. Sometimes it just moves quietly out of the hands of the family that built it.

What the bag came to mean

Let me come back to that Gucci bag, bought in Singapore a quarter of a century ago with overtime money. For twenty-five years it was simply a beautiful thing, hard-earned and much loved. Since reading Forden's book, I cannot pick it up without thinking of the family whose name it carries. The bag has outlasted the family's ownership of the very company that made it. There is something almost unbearably poignant in that. A canvas cross-body bag, in a cupboard in India, has held on to its Gucci for longer, in a sense, than the Guccis themselves did.

Strip away the murder, the courtrooms and the couture, and the book leaves a business family with a handful of quiet instructions. Divide ownership in a way that feels fair to those who build the value, and be willing to revisit it as contributions change over the years. Give your children a genuine role in good time, before their talent curdles into resentment. Keep the family, the owners and the managers in clear view, and decide with open eyes where the people who marry in will stand. Earn the right to manage the business, or hand that task to those who have earned it. And raise your governance, your council and your means of settling disputes while the days are still calm, because none of it can be raised once the quarrels begin.

Guccio Gucci began with a craftsman's pride and a porter's eye for beauty. His grandsons inherited the genius and never learnt the grace of sharing it. The bags still sell. The name still shines. The family is simply no longer in the room where the decisions are made. Every dynasty would do well to keep that warning close.

A great family business is rarely destroyed in a single dramatic moment. It is undone slowly, across ordinary years, each time a family allows pride to win over governance. The House of Gucci shows us where that road ends. The ending of our own story is still ours to write.

Family Businesses as a Pillar of Viksit Bharat

This article was first published in the Economic Times on January 29, 2026; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/family-businesses-as-a-pillar-of-viksit-bharat/articleshow/127759602.cms?from=mdr

Introduction: The Missing Big Idea

In a recent letter to the Finance Minister published in the Times of India, Duvvuri Subbarao, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, posed a question that goes to the heart of India’s economic moment. If Viksit Bharat is the overarching vision of this government, what does it mean in concrete terms, and how are annual budgets aligned to that vision? Drawing a parallel with Manmohan Singh’s landmark 1991 budget, where the “big idea” was liberalisation, Subbarao asks what the equivalent organising principle is today.

This article argues that one such pillar of Viksit Bharat must be explicitly recognised and supported: India’s family businesses. The objective here is twofold. First, to situate family enterprises historically and empirically as engines of nation building. Second, to outline what the Finance Minister can do, through policy and budgetary choices, to enable family businesses to contribute responsibly, transparently, and sustainably to India’s development journey.

Family Businesses and Nation Building: A Historical Constant

Family businesses are the oldest and most enduring organisational form across nations. In India, family enterprises have long been builders of physical infrastructure, educational institutions, healthcare systems, and local employment. At India’s current stage of development, where the need for infrastructure, patient capital, and institution building is acute, these characteristics matter deeply.

History offers a useful parallel. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States witnessed massive infrastructure creation led by business families such as the Vanderbilts, the Carnegies, and the Rockefellers. Railroads, steel, oil, and finance were shaped by families willing to take long-term risks at scale. These families helped build the economic foundations of modern America.

India today stands at a comparable inflection point. Large family-controlled business groups are deeply involved in roads, ports, renewable energy, logistics, manufacturing, education, and healthcare. These are sectors where long gestation periods and intergenerational commitment are advantages rather than liabilities.

Lessons from the Robber Barons

Yet history also cautions us. Many of the American families who built that infrastructure later came to be labelled “robber barons”. Some lost legitimacy due to concentration of power, weak governance, opaque practices, and an inability to manage succession effectively. Several family empires fragmented or faded, not because of lack of wealth, but because institutions did not evolve alongside scale.

This is a lesson India must take seriously. The choice is not between celebrating or constraining family businesses. The real policy challenge is to fuel entrepreneurial energy while embedding governance, transparency, and meritocracy. Without this balance, family capitalism risks public backlash and private decline.

Why Family Businesses Matter for Viksit Bharat

If Viksit Bharat is about sustained prosperity, social stability, and institutional depth, family businesses are uniquely positioned to contribute in four ways.

First, they provide patient capital. Family owners are often willing to invest across cycles, absorb short-term volatility, and commit to long-horizon projects that are unattractive to purely financial investors.

Second, they anchor local economies. Family enterprises are embedded in regions and communities, making them critical to employment generation, skill formation, and social cohesion.

Third, they enable institutional philanthropy. Many of India’s educational and healthcare institutions have been built by business families, often long before corporate social responsibility became mandatory.

Fourth, they ensure continuity. In a world of rapid managerial churn, family ownership can provide strategic consistency, provided governance systems are robust.

Policy Lessons from Other Economies

Across several jurisdictions, governments are beginning to recognise family enterprises as distinct economic actors whose long-term orientation and ownership continuity require tailored policy responses. As documented by Tharawat Magazine , this shift reflects an understanding that family businesses contribute disproportionately to employment, capital formation, and institutional stability, yet face structural vulnerabilities during succession and ownership transition that generic corporate policy does not address. The emerging response is not to privilege family firms indiscriminately, but to make them visible within the policy architecture.

This recognition has taken different institutional forms. In the United States, the creation of a bipartisan Family Business Caucus within Congress signals an effort to ensure that family enterprises are explicitly considered in legislative and regulatory debates. In Poland and Canada, legal and tax reforms have focused on reducing the cost and complexity of intergenerational transfers, acknowledging that poorly managed succession can destroy productive capacity and jobs. In the United Arab Emirates, a dedicated Family Companies Law, supported by state-backed institutions, seeks to codify governance, succession, and dispute resolution mechanisms, positioning family firms as long-term partners in national economic strategy. Hong Kong, meanwhile, has focused on building an ecosystem around family capital and family offices, combining regulatory adjustments with investments in institutional capacity for stewardship and legacy planning.

What unites these diverse approaches, as Tharawat Magazine underscores, is a move away from treating family ownership as incidental. Instead, policy frameworks increasingly aim to align continuity with governance, transparency, and professionalisation. The lesson for India is not to replicate any one model, but to recognise that if family businesses are to anchor Viksit Bharat, they must be deliberately integrated into policy design, fiscal incentives, and economic measurement, rather than remaining an invisible yet systemically important segment of the economy. 

Policy Recommendations

If robust family businesses are to be a measurable pillar of Viksit Bharat, policy intent must translate into administratively actionable and fiscally grounded measures.

First, formal recognition of family enterprises: The Union Budget can announce a formal definition of family businesses, notified jointly by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This would allow family enterprises to be recognised as a distinct category for policy design, without creating a new regulatory burden. Budget documents can mandate periodic data collection through MCA filings, enabling evidence-based policymaking.

Second, governance-linked fiscal incentives: Under the Direct Tax framework administered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, targeted deductions or concessional tax treatment can be offered to family enterprises that meet specified governance benchmarks. These may include independent directors, documented succession plans, audited family constitutions, and separation of ownership and management. This aligns tax policy with long-term institutionalisation rather than short-term compliance.

Third, succession and continuity financing: The Budget can create a dedicated Succession and Continuity Credit Window, routed through public sector banks and development finance institutions. Backed by partial government guarantees, this facility would support ownership transitions during generational change, preventing distress sales, fragmentation, and employment loss. This intervention sits squarely within the Ministry of Finance’s financial stability and credit flow mandate.

Fourth, targeted public expenditure for family-led nation building: Capital expenditure allocations for infrastructure, education, healthcare, and energy transition can explicitly prioritise public–private partnerships anchored by long-term family ownership. Viability gap funding and concessional finance can be linked to governance and transparency standards, ensuring that public funds support stewardship-oriented capital rather than short-term extraction.

Fifth, next-generation capability development: Budgetary support can be provided under skilling and higher education heads, in coordination with the Ministries of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, and Education, for structured leadership and governance programmes tailored to next-generation family members. Treating succession as a national economic continuity issue reframes it from a private family matter to a public interest concern. 

Measuring Progress: Integrating Family Business Health into Economic Reporting

If Viksit Bharat is to move beyond aspiration, it requires metrics embedded in official economic reporting. One such metric should be the robustness of India’s family business ecosystem.

The Finance Ministry can mandate the creation of a Family Business Development Index, published periodically alongside existing economic indicators. This composite index could track intergenerational survival rates, governance quality, professional management penetration, employment contribution, reinvestment rates, and participation in national priority sectors.

Such reporting would serve three purposes. It would signal that stewardship-based capitalism matters to India’s development vision. It would create incentives for business families to institutionalise governance and succession practices. And it would give policymakers an early warning system for stress in a segment that employs millions and anchors regional economies.

Conclusion: A Call for Early Attention

Embedding family businesses as a pillar of Viksit Bharat will not happen overnight. It may not be feasible to incorporate many of these ideas in the forthcoming budget. Policy design, inter-ministerial coordination, and institutional alignment take time.

But that is precisely why the conversation must begin now. As an early set of ideas for the next budget cycle, this article urges the Finance Minister to take notice. If India wants development that is durable, inclusive, and institutionally sound, it must look closely at the families that build, own, and steward its enterprises.

Viksit Bharat will not be built by capital alone. It will be built by families who think beyond one generation, supported by policies that reward responsibility as much as ambition.

How India Inc 2.0 can transform familial privilege into impactful leadership

This article was first published in the Economic Times on April 13, 2025. Co-author: Kavil Ramachandran; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/how-india-inc-2-0-can-transform-familial-privilege-into-impactful-leadership/articleshow/120237165.cms?from=mdr

From a distance, the heirs of India’s eminent family-run conglomerates seem favoured by destiny. With access to elite global education, rigorous mentorship, and unparalleled resources, they appear poised effortlessly for leadership. But beneath the apparent privilege is a daunting reality. The successors of family dynasties like Reliance, Godrej, Adani, Birla, Tata, and Bajaj face formidable challenges—legacy burdens, intense public scrutiny, the delicate task of honouring tradition while innovating for the future, and the challenge of finding one’s own voice in a business built by towering patriarchs. 

The weight of Legacy

Inheriting a family business is a paradox: simultaneously a blessing and an overwhelming responsibility. The second or third generation inherits more than businesses—they inherit legacy. Mukesh Ambani's children—Akash, Isha, and Anant—bear not only the weight of managing Jio, Reliance Retail, and new energy ventures but must also live up to the legend of a father who turned Reliance into a $250-billion empire. Similarly, Nyrika Holkar, part of the fourth generation at Godrej, has stepped into a business synonymous with Indian identity—from locks and soaps to real estate and agrochemicals and beyond. 

The problem with legacy is that it sets an invisible benchmark. “Can they ever be as visionary as their predecessors?” is an unspoken question they constantly confront. Even when these inheritors are Ivy League-educated, McKinsey-trained, or battle-tested within their firms, their every move is compared to the founders. The daunting challenge of being in the ‘founder's shadow’—the psychological weight of comparisons that threaten autonomy and individuality in leadership roles, is real! It’s a double-edged sword: the legacy opens doors, but it also limits room for error. 

Balancing Tradition with Transformation

A prominent challenge facing these heirs is navigating between respecting inherited traditions and meeting contemporary demands. Traditional Indian family businesses emerged in regulatory environments defined by protectionism, limited competition, and incremental change. Today's successors must manage rapid digitisation, sustainability imperatives, and stakeholder capitalism, often within organisational cultures that remain anchored in hierarchical, conservative decision-making.

While Sanjiv Bajaj, now Chairman and MD of Bajaj Finserv, has been widely credited for pioneering financial innovations and building a fintech powerhouse, he did so while carefully navigating the strong legacy of Rahul Bajaj’s manufacturing-centric vision. The message to other next-gen leaders is clear: real success lies in transforming without erasing. 

Structured Grooming: Beyond Formal Education

To their credit, most of India’s business families have become much more structured about grooming their heirs. Business education is no longer left to osmosis. Formal mentoring, shadowing senior executives, and rotations across group companies are standard. Many also bring in external CEOs to create professional buffers. For instance, Aditya Birla Group’s Kumar Mangalam Birla gave his children an extended runway, encouraging internships and hands-on training across businesses, including time spent in overseas ventures. Gautam Adani, chairman of the Adani Group, has articulated a clear succession plan, aiming to transition control to the next generation by the early 2030s. 

These measures provide not just technical acumen but also crucial credibility with professional managers. Yet, structured mentorship is not a panacea. The successors must still confront the psychological isolation of leadership, what is often described as the “loneliness of command.” Peer relationships can often become transactional, while relentless media scrutiny denies privacy, significantly affecting emotional resilience and personal identity development.

Family Dynamics: Navigating Collaboration and Conflict

Effective succession in large business families hinges on alignment more than mere capability. Divergent visions between generations can become severe impediments. The recent Godrej family restructuring, where brothers Adi and Nadir Godrej amicably split consumer and real estate arms, is a rare example of smooth succession planning. Conversely, disputes within many Indian family groups escalate publicly, harming reputational capital and performance.

Mitigating family conflict necessitates clear governance structures. Research consistently highlights that robust family constitutions, shareholder agreements, and professional advisory boards can depersonalise family decision-making and facilitate constructive dialogue. Yet, siblings in large family business groups must still demonstrate their ability to effectively manage interpersonal conflicts, notwithstanding the presence of established family governance structures.

Moving from Entitlement to Meritocracy

The shift towards merit-based succession has significantly reshaped India's family businesses, underscoring the need for next-generation leaders to earn their place through tangible achievements rather than relying solely on lineage. Rahul Bajaj famously remarked, "Get me someone who is more capable to run Bajaj Auto than Rajiv," demonstrating his openness to professional capability over familial entitlement. This emphasis on meritocracy proved prescient, as Rajiv and Sanjiv Bajaj subsequently steered Bajaj Auto and Bajaj Finserv to new heights, innovating across automotive and financial services sectors.

Such a meritocratic approach can be further strengthened by instituting advisory councils comprising independent experts, providing objective guidance to ensure strategic decisions are made transparently and competently. Moreover, embracing a pluralistic approach to leadership allows next-generation members the flexibility to find roles aligned with their unique capabilities and passions, fostering an environment where meritocracy genuinely thrives.

The Road Ahead: Redefining Legacy Leadership

India stands at an inflection point, witnessing generational transitions not just politically and culturally, but significantly within its economic landscape. The future of India’s largest family-run conglomerates rests on the ability of their next-generation leaders to transform legacy leadership from a mere entitlement into a purposeful commitment, defined by humility, cohesion, and holistic vision.

Ratan Tata's ascension as Chairman of the Tata Group in 1991 vividly illustrates this journey. Stepping into the colossal shoes of the legendary J.R.D. Tata, Ratan initially faced considerable scepticism. Yet, he went on to not merely sustain but substantially expand the Tata legacy. More importantly, he established himself as a globally respected leader and an icon, demonstrating that inheritors can indeed honour their predecessors while courageously forging their unique path.

Today's successors in iconic Indian business houses are similarly positioned. Their true challenge lies not simply in protecting or expanding business empires but in upholding foundational values, fostering organisational cohesion, and breaking down silos to embrace integrated thinking. In doing so, these inheritors will not merely replicate past successes—they will meaningfully shape India's trajectory, creating legacies defined by integrity, innovation, and a profound commitment to the greater good. 

They have the opportunity to transform familial privilege into impactful leadership. Hopefully, they won’t just wear the crown—they’ll redefine it.

Legacy in Action: Continuity, Storytelling, and Archiving at the TATAs

This Book Review was first published in the Economic Times, December 13, 2024; https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/legacy-in-action-continuity-storytelling-and-archiving-at-the-tatas/articleshow/116273631.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

In Jamsetji Tata: Powerful Learnings for Corporate Success, R. Gopalakrishnan and Harish Bhat provide an intimate view into the Tata Group’s legacy, revealing the values and vision that have helped this family enterprise endure across generations. This book benefits from the insider perspective of authors who have “lived” within the Tata ethos. Throughout the book, three core principles stood out to me for their relevance to family businesses everywhere: continuity, storytelling, and archiving. Through these pillars, the Tata Group has not only survived but has actively contributed to India’s growth story for over a century.

Continuity as the Backbone of Purpose

In family businesses, continuity is the anchor that keeps purpose alive. The Tata Group is a compelling case in point, where continuity is not a passive inheritance but a deliberate practice. Jamsetji Tata envisioned an institute of higher education in India and his son, Dorabji Tata, carried this vision forward by establishing the Indian Institute of Science, a foundation for India’s scientific advancement. Later leaders, like Naoroji Saklatwala and Ratan Tata, stayed true to Jamsetji’s goals by expanding the group’s initiatives in healthcare, education, and rural outreach, including regions like the underserved Northeast.

What emerges through Jamsetji Tata is an argument for continuity as more than tradition; it is an evolving legacy that serves as both compass and anchor. Without continuity, iconic Tata projects like the Cancer Research Institute or the Northeast Initiative could have easily become fleeting ventures. Instead, they are legacies, continually renewed by successive leaders. The Tata story suggests that if family businesses seek to last, their purpose must be deliberately preserved and adapted across generations.

The Role of Storytelling in Building Legacy

Gopalakrishnan and Bhat show that in Tata’s journey, storytelling has played a central role in transmitting values and keeping the organization’s mission alive. In business, it’s easy to lose sight of purpose, but stories—especially those that explain the “why” behind values—make those principles memorable and accessible. Storytelling within Tata has preserved a cohesive narrative, reinforcing the organization’s commitment to community, integrity, and resilience in the face of adversity.

Consider the story of Mithapur, a drought-stricken settlement in Gujarat that Tata helped turn into a thriving township. In today’s era, where discussions often revolve around work-life balance, the dedication that went into transforming Mithapur may seem almost unimaginable. Tata’s story in Mithapur illustrates what’s possible when companies invest beyond profit, in places that need development. They offer insights into the ethos of purpose-driven enterprises and inspire budding entrepreneurs to envision business as a force for societal good.

As the spouse of an entrepreneur, the story of Dorabji Tata and his wife Meher Bai, who pledged their entire wealth to save Tata Steel, resonates deeply with me. I know how tough these decisions are. Tata’s stories don’t merely showcase business achievements—they reveal the spirit of sacrifice and conviction that make up the core of the organization’s legacy. And, storytelling isn’t just a tool for marketing but a way to instill values that resonate across generations and communities.

Archiving as a Pillar of Organizational Memory

Perhaps the most understated yet powerful aspect in Jamsetji Tata is the emphasis on archiving as a tool for continuity. By meticulously preserving letters, speeches, and records, Tata has built a repository that keeps its past connected to its future. This archive doesn’t just record facts; it captures lessons, insights, and the reasoning behind key decisions, providing a resource for current and future leaders alike, cultivating a living memory.

For other family businesses, the Tata archive is an inspiring model, underscoring how documenting history and values can build a lasting legacy. Preserving history this way is more than nostalgia; it’s a strategic resource that reinforces Tata’s purpose, ensuring that its ethos remains as powerful today as it was a century ago.

A Blueprint for Family Businesses Seeking Enduring Success

Taken together, continuity, storytelling, and archiving create a framework for sustaining purpose over generations. Gopalakrishnan and Bhat’s account is both a tribute to Tata’s rich history and a guide for family businesses grappling with the challenge of building a legacy that lasts. This book invites business families to consider how they might nurture a shared purpose, disseminate stories that resonate across generations, and preserve the lessons of the past for future growth.

Through their insider perspective, Gopalakrishnan and Bhat reveal that in a world often consumed by the pursuit of growth and innovation, Jamsetji Tata is a timely reminder that true legacy is not merely built, but carefully tended—through continuity in purpose and values, storytelling, and preservation. The authors offer an enduring truth: success may be measured in quarters, but legacy is crafted across centuries.

Indian Family Businesses: Few clear on succession, why others need to worry?

This article was first published in the Financial Express on November 07, 2024; Co-author: Shailendra Agarwal; https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/indian-family-businesses-few-clear-on-succession-why-others-need-to-worry/3658620/

Succession is one of the most important issue facing family businesses, yet only about 21% of the 106 family business leaders surveyed agreed to having a robust, documented and communicated succession plan, in India (PwC India Family Business Survey 2019). Other global surveys tell a similar story highlighting a serious oversight that could lead to business failure, family disputes, and the erosion of wealth that has taken generations to build.

Family businesses form the backbone of India’s economy, but many struggle with the complexities of succession. Take the Singhania family of JK Group as a case in point. Once one of India’s most illustrious business families, the Singhanias faced protracted legal and family disputes when succession planning took a backseat. Disagreements among family members over leadership of the iconic Raymond brand left the company embroiled in controversy, impacting both business operations and family relationships. This example highlights the importance of clear, proactive succession planning to avoid potential instability and disputes.

While succession planning is widely discussed, many family enterprises fail to act in time. Delays or ambiguities in leadership transitions can destabilize both the family legacy and business stability. In this article, we explore why proactive succession planning is critical, along with strategies for navigating the emotional and family dynamics that often accompany generational transitions.

A Legacy in Limbo

Succession in family businesses is about more than passing on a title; it’s about preserving a legacy. Without a formal, proactive plan, businesses risk destabilization, internal conflict, and financial loss. Consider the example of Beri Constructions (names disguised). Founded by Jayesh Beri's grandfather, the company was left vulnerable when his uncle, refusing to step down, blocked Jayesh’s advancement. Frustrated, Jayesh left to start his own venture, leaving Beri Constructions rudderless. Eventually, it was sold under duress at a fraction of its worth. A lack of succession planning had cost the family dearly.

In contrast, Shah Motors, a billion-rupee enterprise, took a different route. The founding brothers initiated succession planning early, training and mentoring the next generation. By aligning family goals with business needs, they created a smooth leadership transition that preserved both family unity and business prosperity.

The Emotional Roadblocks

The complexity of succession planning often lies more in emotions than in economics. Founders may struggle to step aside, fearing a loss of control and identity, while successors feel frustrated or entitled. The key lies in managing these dynamics openly and with empathy. Founders who proactively mentor successors and gradually hand over responsibility foster a healthier transition. This approach not only strengthens business resilience but also keeps family bonds intact.

Strategies for Effective Succession

For family businesses to thrive through generational change, succession planning must be intentional and structured. Here are five proven strategies:

·       Start Early: Succession planning should begin years before the transition, giving successors time to build experience and competence.

·       Prioritize Merit Over Entitlement: Choose successors based on capability, not family hierarchy. Future leaders should have the skills and vision necessary for business continuity.

·       Clarify Roles: Defining family and non-family members' roles within the business minimizes confusion and conflict.

·       Mentorship, Not Micromanagement: Founders should act as mentors, not controllers, allowing successors to lead effectively while providing guidance.

·       Plan for Contingencies: Succession plans should include contingencies for unforeseen events, ensuring stability in crises.

Redefining Roles for Smooth Transition

One overlooked aspect of succession is the incumbent’s transition. Rather than clinging to day-to-day leadership, founders should gradually step back, redefining their role to ensure continuity. This gradual handover not only stabilizes the business but also helps the outgoing leader adjust emotionally.

The Choice is Yours

Succession in family businesses is inevitable. It can be a smooth handover or a chaotic scramble—depending on how prepared you are. As with Shah Motors, a thoughtful succession plan can protect your legacy and keep your business resilient. Without it, the family’s hard-earned wealth and reputation risk fading into obscurity.

Failing to plan for succession is like handing over the keys to someone unprepared: the journey might continue for a while, but it’s bound to derail eventually. The choice is clear: prepare now or pay later.

Navigating the Crossroads

This article was originally published in Business Standard, May 07, 2024; Co-author: Kavil Ramachandran

https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/impact-of-divisions-in-family-businesses-motivations-and-consequences-124050601237_1.html

The recent trend of ownership restructuring and vertical splits amongst prominent Indian family businesses, exemplified by the division within the Godrej Group, has brought to the forefront the complexities and challenges associated with managing large, multi-generational enterprises. While opting to split the business may appear as a strategic manoeuvre to navigate differing visions and aspirations within the family, it necessitates a thorough examination of both the potential benefits and drawbacks. This article delves into a comprehensive perspective on family business divisions, scrutinizing both the motivations propelling such decisions and the adverse consequences they may entail at both familial and corporate levels.

The Positive Aspects

Complexity of Managing Large Conglomerates: As family businesses expand and diversify, managing the intricate web of operations and stakeholders becomes increasingly challenging. Formations of smaller clusters, each having its own strategic business units, allows for streamlined management structures and clearer accountability, leading to enhanced efficiency and agility in decision-making. For instance, the Adi-Nadir and Jamshed-Smita clusters will enable the entities to focus on their core competencies and strategic priorities, driving operational excellence and value creation in their respective sectors.

Unlocking Value and Growth Potential: A split can unlock the individual value and growth potential of different business segments. Specialized focus allows each entity to tailor strategies, attract specific talent, and pursue targeted investments, ultimately leading to greater success and profitability. The division of the Godrej Group into separate entities controlled by different family members should enable each cluster to capitalize on their respective strengths and market opportunities, drive innovation, and value creation.

Accommodating Growth and Aspirations of the Family: As family businesses expand across generations, differing opinions on strategy and management can arise, leading to conflict. Dividing the business offers autonomy to individual branches, fostering ownership and accountability while reducing discord. For example, the Birla Group split allowed each faction to pursue independent growth, leveraging diverse skills. Additionally, younger generations may seek opportunities aligned with their interests, driving innovation. For instance, the Bajaj Group's diversification into finance empowered the next generation to pursue their entrepreneurial vision.

Learning from Past Experiences: Observing the challenges faced by other business families during succession or disputes can serve as valuable lessons. Proactively choosing to divide the business allows for a planned and amicable transition, ensuring the preservation of family relationships and the brand's reputation. The Bajaj family's decision to split the Bajaj Group into separate entities facilitated a smoother transition of leadership and ownership, mitigating the risk of future legal battles and reputational damage, while preserving the family's unity and legacy.

Ownership and Rewards: A strategic and amicable split within a family business can enable individuals to have greater "skin in the game" and receive rewards commensurate with their contributions and aspirations, ultimately fostering harmony and prosperity within the family. The Mittal family, for example, founders of the Mittal Steel Company, decided to amicably split the business to align ownership with individual aspirations and rewards.

Moreover, the division of the business not only aligns ownership with individual aspirations and rewards but also serves to minimize politics in decision-making processes. By decentralizing control and empowering each cluster within the family, quicker decision-making is facilitated, eliminating the need for seeking approval from numerous stakeholders.

While the preceding discussion highlights reasons that motivate families to split, it's essential to recognize that divisions entail inherent risks and complexities too. Below, we discuss some negative impacts of splitting.

Unintended Downsides

Loss of Synergy and Economies of Scale: A unified conglomerate often benefits from synergies between diverse business segments, leading to cost efficiencies, shared resources, and heightened bargaining power. For instance, the Tata Group's diversified portfolio leverages synergies across industries, bolstering its competitive edge and financial performance, including a cohesive brand identity. However, the division of such conglomerates, as seen in the case of the Ambani family's split of the Reliance Group and the TVS group, risks diluting these synergistic advantages, thereby impacting profitability and competitiveness.

Potential for Family Conflict and Rivalries: While division may aim to address existing disagreements or differing aspirations within the family, it can inadvertently give rise to new challenges and rivalries between the separated entities. The battle between two hero group entities, post the split, regarding the use of the brand name ‘Hero’, highlights the potential for discord arising from family business divisions. Such conflicts can impede decision-making processes, hinder strategic alignment, and erode shareholder value.

Challenges in Succession Planning and Leadership Development: Staying unified provides access to a broader talent pool, both from within the family and externally, ensuring continuity and strength in leadership across the organization. The Murugappa Group's robust leadership development programs serve as a prime example, facilitating seamless succession planning and talent pipeline management across its diverse business verticals. However, splitting the business may curtail these opportunities, making it more challenging to ensure a seamless succession process and maintain robust leadership across the separated entities.

Emotional and Cultural Impact: Family businesses often pride themselves on strong cultural identities and shared values that underpin their success. The Murugappa Group exemplifies this with its deep-rooted cultural ethos of trust, integrity, and entrepreneurship, which has fostered a cohesive organizational culture and sustained business performance over generations. However, division poses a risk to this unity and shared purpose, potentially leading to emotional challenges and a loss of cultural cohesion within the family.

Growing Wealth Disparity: Past business splits have revealed that while divisions may start out equitable, over time, one faction often amasses more wealth and resources. For example, the Ambani brothers' feud over the Reliance Group's assets led to a significant wealth gap between Mukesh and Anil Ambani. These disparities can fuel family tensions and perpetuate financial inequalities, highlighting the socioeconomic impact of family business divisions.

Harmonizing Family and Corporate Choices

In navigating the complex terrain of family business divisions, it becomes imperative to acknowledge the nuanced interplay of motivations and consequences. While the prospect of splitting a conglomerate may offer avenues for addressing immediate challenges and accommodating evolving aspirations, it also entails significant risks and losses, both at the familial and corporate levels. The case studies of prominent Indian business families, such as the Ambanis, Birlas, and Munjals, underscore the intricate dynamics and far-reaching implications of such divisions, ranging from wealth disparities to emotional upheavals.

By embracing a proactive stance towards addressing emerging challenges, family conglomerates like Godrej could potentially have emerged as global powerhouses, wielding not just economic influence but also shaping the broader political and societal landscape. However, by choosing to split, these conglomerates risk diluting their legacies and missing out on transformative growth opportunities. Ultimately, the path forward for family businesses lies in striking a delicate balance between tradition and innovation, unity and autonomy, to ensure sustained success and relevance in an increasingly competitive global landscape. We can only hope that the sum of the parts is eventually greater than the whole, in numbers, as well as in family harmony, togetherness, and impact.

An Unmissable Journey For Family Business Owners & Scholars

This review was first published in the Family Business United on August 22, 2023; https://www.familybusinessunited.com/post/an-unmissable-journey-for-family-business-owners-scholars

About the book:

The Cartiers is the revealing tale of a jewelry dynasty's four generations, from revolutionary France to the 1970s. At its heart are the three Cartier brothers whose motto was 'Never copy, only create' and who made their family firm internationally famous in the early days of the twentieth century, thanks to their unique and complementary talents: Louis, the visionary designer who created the first men's wristwatch to help an aviator friend tell the time without taking his hands off the controls of his flying machine; Pierre, the master dealmaker who bought the New York headquarters on Fifth Avenue for a double-stranded natural pearl necklace; and Jacques, the globe-trotting gemstone expert whose travels to India gave Cartier access to the world's best rubies, emeralds, and sapphires, inspiring the celebrated Tutti Frutti jewelry.

Francesca Cartier Brickell, whose great-grandfather was the youngest of the brothers, has traveled the world researching her family's history, tracking down those connected with her ancestors and discovering long-lost pieces of the puzzle along the way. Now she reveals never-before-told dramas, romances, intrigues, betrayals, and more.

The Cartiers also offers a behind-the-scenes look at the firm's most iconic jewelry- the notoriously cursed Hope Diamond, the Romanov emeralds, the classic panther pieces, and the long line of stars from the worlds of fashion, film, and royalty who wore them, from Indian maharajas and Russian grand duchesses to Wallis Simpson, Coco Chanel, and Elizabeth Taylor.

Published in the two-hundredth anniversary year of the birth of the dynasty's founder, Louis-François Cartier, this book is a magnificent, definitive, epic social history shown through the deeply personal lens of one legendary family.

Review:

Francesca Cartier Brickell's magnum opus, "The Cartiers," creates an enthralling narrative that captivated me from the very beginning. As I delved into the book, I felt part of the Cartier family, standing shoulder to shoulder with the family members and the illustrious figures that shaped their history. The author masterfully blends historical facts with personal accounts, transporting the readers to the grand salons and dazzling soirées of the Belle Époque, where the Cartiers' creations adorned the crème de la crème of society.

This book is an enchanting exploration of family, business, artistry, and the timeless allure of the Cartier legacy, the brilliance of a dynasty that, while no longer owned by the family, continues to thrive as a testament to their enduring legacy. This must-read book offers invaluable insights and profound lessons for family business owners and scholars, making it an essential addition to any family business library.

The book delves into the heart of family dynamics, the unique opportunities, and challenges that being a family business pose. The nuances of sibling camaraderie, complex relationships between cousins, shared vision and family governance, and the circumstances leading to selling the family members' stake in the business, have been poignantly narrated.

I can safely say that I have read thousands (at least a thousand plus some more) of books in my lifetime. Many of them are good. Few are extraordinary. And a handful are books that transported me to being a witness to the journey, the story. Buddenbrooks by Thomas Mann was one such book. The Cartiers is the other. While it is not right to compare both, they are both magnificent in their own right. One significant difference is that Buddenbrooks is fiction, while the Cartiers is reality! And the reality is stranger rather more interesting than fiction in this case.

In this fan-girl account and book review, I dwell upon my journey with the Cartiers in the following paragraphs. In the process, I highlight a few aspects where Cartiers provide living proof of the theories in family businesses.

Traveling back in time

One of the book's most compelling aspects is the portrayal of iconic personalities who adorned Cartier's jewels. From Princess Grace of Monaco to the incomparable Elizabeth Taylor, their stories intertwine with the history of the pieces they wore, elevating them to objects of profound significance, and transporting the readers to the world of passion, resilience, opulence, and elegance.

Brickell's meticulous research and intimate family anecdotes allowed me to travel back in time to participate in the Cartier journey. I was there when the fire broke out in the Cartier store leading monsieur Louis-François Cartier to be risk averse. I felt his pain when his only son Alfred traveled to the US, and he pined to be reunited with him. I witnessed Alfred convincing his eldest son, Louis, to marry a Worth as it would benefit Cartier's name and business. I celebrated with Alfred when Jean-Jacques Cartier, his first grandson, was born (albeit with a tinge of guilt. But I had traveled back in time to 1919, you see! I can't really blame myself for being a part of the patriarchal society back then).

I rooted for Jacques to return to the business. I cried out aloud. "Oh, come on, Jacques. Cartiers needs you. Come back soon." I felt one with Elma and Nelly, like the third band of the Trinity ring.

I witnessed the Eiffel Tower being unveiled and felt the anxiety of Pierre and Nelly aboard a ship from New York to London when they heard of the Titanic sinking. I traveled to the durbars of the Gaekwads and the Nizam of Hyderabad with Jacques.

When Jacques passed away, I sobbed uncontrollably. I felt the pain of Nelly and Jean-Jacques. I paid my obeisance to the genius of Louis. I felt the loneliness of Pierre, who lost both his brothers within a year.

Adapting on the go

The Cartiers' journey mirrors the ever-changing landscape of world society, as their creations adorned monarchs, celebrities, and the crème de la crème of society. Good jewelry touches every who's who, from the Czarinas to the Kings, the Nizams, the businessmen, Elizabeth Taylor, the Beatles, Elton John, and more recently, Deepika Padukone.

As demonstrated in their successful multi-national transatlantic operations, the Cartiers' ability to embrace change and adapt to evolving markets aligns with the "Dynamic Capabilities" theory, allowing them to thrive through turbulent times. As the Romanovs fell and the bodice gave way for practical clothes for women, as the war raged and even the wealthy preferred a more austere way of life, as the Maharajas in India paved the way for democracy and the rare pearls gave way to cultured pearls, the Cartiers kept adapting through their designs, prices, and products.

Expression of feelings and archiving

Francesca Cartier Brickell found a trunk of letters in her grandfather's cellar. These letters formed an important source of information for her book. The letters provided her with the raw emotions expressed by the writer. When Louis-Francois wrote to his son Alfred, "I don't need to tell you that I long for your return. You and I are inseparable…," we can feel him pine for his son. I could imagine Pierre fuming when he wrote to his nephew, Claude, "…the consequences, serious for you and regrettable for us."

While the means of communication have increased, they have become instant, will future generations have such words of expression to recreate the journeys of the 21^st century, which will be history in the future? Will we have saved WhatsApp messages and phone calls? Do the torchbearers of business families today express themselves so openly through emails? The reality is not lost on any of us.  

We are in touch more but express less. We talk more but communicate less. We write more words, but they mean less. We have more storage, but we have no records of emotions.

The book is a testament to the importance of writing, expressing, and archiving. This art is dwindling and will cost legacy building dearly in centuries to come.

Familiness and Resources

At its core, "The Cartiers" is a profound exploration of the power of family unity and vision in shaping a lasting legacy. The Cartiers' unwavering belief in brotherhood and collaboration embodies the concept of "familiness," where the family's collective strengths drive their entrepreneurial endeavors to remarkable heights.

The book delves into the heart of the Cartier family, exposing their triumphs and tribulations, successes, and challenges. Brickell brings forth the complexity of family dynamics, painting a vivid picture of their relationships and the impact of their shared passion for jewelry. The interplay of personalities between the Cartier brothers – Louis, Pierre, and Jacques – was a driving force behind their success, where creative vision, sales acumen, and financial acuity converged harmoniously. It propelled them through challenging times, navigating global conflicts, economic downturns, or changing consumer preferences.

On one occasion, Pierre recognises their strength, "We brothers are very close, that is our strength" (pg 131). Jean-Jacques added, "Pierre was a brilliant businessman. He didn't have Louis' creative vision, but then again, Louis didn't have Pierre's ability for selling or his understanding of finance... But Pierre understood the markets and he understood people's motivations. Cartier needed the mix of different talents, you see, that was one of the reasons that it did so well" (pg 243).

It's not that the brothers did not have differences or fights. They did. "The trade knew how tight the Cartier brothers were. That was important. It was one of their strengths-when dealing with one, you were actually dealing with all three. They had a lot more bargaining power that way", said Jean- Jacques (pg 330). This crucial lesson in unity is a beacon for any business family seeking to thrive across generations.

The Cartiers also demonstrate the resources acquired through marriage in a family business. All three sons of Alfred Cartier, and Alfred himself, married into families that benefited the Cartier business. The strategic alliances forged through marriage enhanced their reputation and helped them build strong family social capital. The Cartiers' embrace of such unions underscores the importance of carefully curated partnerships and their role in building lasting success.

Family governance and togetherness

In 1906, "Not wanting any arguments between his sons, Alfred had a dispute resolution clause built into the firm's constitutional documents. If there was a disagreement between Louis and Pierre, the matter should be resolved by either Alfred or, interestingly, Louis' father-in-law, Jean-Philippe Worth." There was even a family council in place. Most business families don't have a stated dispute resolution mechanism or a constitution, even today! They must have one! The Cartiers' shareholding also changed and kept up with the growing multi-national transatlantic operations.

However, the presence of family governance mechanisms did not prevent the Cartiers from eventually selling off their stake in the firm. I think one reason the family sold out their stake was the dwindling bond within the fourth-generation members, their bond with the business, and the passion to keep it in the family.

The fourth generation of the Cartiers grew up apart due to the third generation primarily living in three different far-off cities. They did not have the same bond as the third generation, which had grown up together. Brickell laments, "But whereas three close brothers with complementary talents could survive the storms life threw at them, from a huge global conflict to a great depression, the cousins, lacking the same bond and shared upbringing, found the challenges of the postwar world overwhelming" (pg 539).

I also felt the pressure on Claude, Marion and Claudel, and Jean- Jacque to live up to their predecessors. Each one of them handled it differently. The tussle between Pierre and Claudel was unfortunate. But who was wrong, and who was right? I felt anger towards Claudel, but could I blame him for being different from the rest of the flock? I could feel the weight on his shoulders and the rebellion, perhaps because of it.

In the end, family bonding, pride in the family name, and shared values keep the family and the business together. Brickell wonders, "Perhaps, as a unified family, the Cartiers might have adapted to the changes sweeping through the luxury world, but apart and alone, they could not" (pg 536). Perhaps. It is difficult to say in hindsight. But I would like to believe it too.

From the time Louis shifted to the US, accounts of his lifestyle there did not leave me with a good feeling. After that, the sale of New York and Paris branches did not surprise me. The writing was on the wall, in a sense. His last will and testament read, "Division in families creates ruin and misery. I command my heirs to maintain harmony among themselves and with their cousins " (pg 381). Unfortunately, Louis' caution could not prevent the sale of the New York Maison by his son, the first nail in the coffin.

Resilience

The book weaves through tumultuous events such as the World Wars, the sinking of the Titanic, and the great depression, where unforeseen circumstances and personal emotions intertwined with the fate of the business. Their united front and complementary talents fuelled their resilience through trying times.

I shared the family's despair as the war raged, with Jean Jacques on military service, Louis and Jacques not keeping well, important clients fleeing from London, Paris, and as America joined the war. I watched in horror as Milton Heath was bombed.

This period seemed so much like the Covid times. Family members worrying about each other, and businesses shut down completely. I would probably not have understood or related to what the Cartiers were going through if I had not lived through the Covid era.

The Cartiers survived these periods and came out stronger each time due to their vision, passion, innovative strategies, and togetherness.

Innovation

From a humble beginning in Paris to the global prominence of the brand, the Cartiers built an empire, one gemstone at a time. The Cartiers' unwavering dedication to craftsmanship and their innate ability to cater to the desires of royalty and celebrities alike are portrayed with such vividness that it's almost palpable. Their creations become more than just jewelry; they transform into symbols of love, power, and human emotion.

Louis's "Never copy, only create" mantra ran through the entire organization, irrespective of the location and the brother handling the business. The Cartiers' devotion to their craft and innovative spirit is encapsulated in their iconic creations, such as the Trinity ring and the Tank watch, which symbolize enduring love and timeless elegance.

While change is the only constant, and the Cartiers kept adapting to the changing customer preferences, the Cartier style remained a constant.

Other stakeholders

Brickell's attention to detail illuminates the family's commitment to their craft, evident in their unwavering focus on quality and customer relationships. I traveled alongside the Cartiers and witnessed their interactions with esteemed clients. These accounts underscore the importance of nurturing relationships with customers and the role of exceptional service in elevating a family business to new heights.

The book also delves into the profound impact of dedicated employees, showcasing how their passion and loyalty contributed to Cartier's reputation for unparalleled craftsmanship. The Cartiers' commitment to nurturing a talented and loyal workforce exemplifies the "Family Human Capital" concept, where family members' and employees' shared values and dedication contribute to the company's sustainable growth.

All three brothers relied heavily on their loyal employees, entrusting them with substantial responsibilities and giving them a free hand to run the business. The Cartier brothers empowered their team and nurtured a culture of excellence. Allowing them to excel in their roles and contribute to the company's growth was instrumental in building long-term success for the family firm. I deeply appreciated the role of employees like Toussaint, Jacqueau, Muffat, Glaezner, Hasey, Bellenger, Devaux, and many more in keeping the Cartier flag flying high in war and peace, in times of family unity and otherwise.

At one time during my journey with Pierre Cartier, I asked him incredulously if Jules Glaezner actually arranged for the stars of a hotly anticipated play to wear Cartier jewels on stage during their performance, then invited "several carefully selected clients, to attend the performance in a special box with him"? Glaenzer had actually selected the jewels for the actors with these clients' tastes in mind. After the show, he went backstage with his guests to meet the actors and collect the necklaces, bandeaux, and bracelets. He then announced that carrying such a huge amount of valuable jewelry would be too risky. Instead, he proposed that each of his female guests select an item to wear for the remainder of the evening and that he would collect it from each of them the following morning. He then took his guests out to a nightclub, where, as intended, their jewels were much admired. The next day, a Cartier delivery boy called at the guests' homes for the jewelry only to find that each woman had decided to buy what she had been wearing the previous evening (pg 253-254).

It was usual for multiple generations of the same family to work at Cartier. Many Cartier employees in all three branches worked for them for decades.

Indian connection

Being an Indian, I cannot but devote a sub-section to the role the Indian Maharajas played in the Cartier's rise. Though, it's not without the realisation that it was the period when the struggle for independence from British rule was underway, and the grandeur of the Indian royalties seems misplaced. But then, really, who am I to judge?

The book's portrayal of the Indian Maharajas and their penchant for extravagant jewels adds a mesmerizing facet to the Cartiers' journey. I traversed the opulent durbars of the Gaekwads, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Maharaja of Patiala, and the Maharaja of Nawanagar, alongside Jacques. Jacques's escapades to India seem like a dream. Imagine him bringing his Rolls Royce to India! I am thinking of his Rolls Royce on roads where there were no roads!

India was once called the "golden bird," and the intertwining of the Cartier's legacy with the wealth and grandeur of Indian royalties was, therefore, no surprise. Yet, the extent left me gaping in awe. When Muffat was summoned by the Maharaja of Patiala, Maharaja Bhupinder Singh, and he opened one gem after another from a trunk full of gems, Paul Muffat tried to hide his awe. I did not. I stood there with my mouth open!

Conclusion

I read the book with a childlike awe and wonder. I did not want the book to end. Francesca Cartier Brickell's extraordinary narrative has etched an indelible mark on my soul, allowing me to traverse time with the Cartiers, witnessing their triumphs and sharing their heartaches. When I stood alongside Brickell at the crypt, my eyes were wet. I felt the connection with the Cartier ancestors more deeply than she would have realised that any reader would.

For family business scholars, "The Cartiers" is a treasure trove of examples that compliments the theories. The book offers a rich tapestry of the Cartiers' experiences, exploring topics such as familiness, succession planning, intergenerational collaboration, the role of communication in maintaining family harmony, family constitution, and the intersection of family and business values. These lessons provide a unique opportunity for scholars to delve into the complexities of family enterprises and draw inspiration from a remarkable family business and the family that created and nurtured it.

For the family business owners, "The Cartiers" is a timeless journey that will speak directly to them, offering a profound understanding of the enduring power of unity, passion, and vision. They will find themselves nodding in recognition in many places as if looking into a mirror reflecting their experiences. It provides invaluable lessons, and a poignant reminder of the lasting impact a family's commitment can have on generations to come.

In conclusion, "The Cartiers" by Francesca Cartier Brickell is an exquisite literary gem that navigates the depths of family business dynamics with grace and insight. I have read numerous books on business families. But none is as exquisite, fascinating, and emotional as the journey of the renowned Cartier family through the ages!