A founder had begun to think seriously about stepping back. A next-generation family member already carried substantial responsibility and was widely viewed as the likely successor. Yet, the transition barely moved.
The founder was unsure whether the successor wanted the top role and worried about placing too much responsibility on them. The successor assumed the founder intended to remain in charge until circumstances forced a change. Other family members and senior executives had their own interpretations —no one had asked the two people most involved to describe what each wanted.
The succession question had been compressed into a binary choice: the founder stays, or the successor takes over. Under that framing, every concern seemed to confirm one of two familiar explanations. The founder would not let go, or the successor was not ready.
What looks like resistance to succession may sometimes be resistance to the way the succession choice has been framed.
Ready for what?
“Is the successor ready?” sounds like a practical question. It often produces a verdict rather than useful information. A “no” leaves the family waiting, sometimes indefinitely. A “yes” may conceal important differences about what the role actually requires.
Readiness for day-to-day management is different from readiness to allocate capital, lead senior executives, represent the family publicly, oversee shared assets, or work with family members who are owners but not employees.
The founder’s job may also contain responsibilities accumulated over decades that no longer belong together.
Before assessing a person’s readiness, the family needs to clarify the work. Here are a few questions to consider: Which responsibilities will matter in the next stage of the enterprise? What evidence would demonstrate the judgment and capability to handle them? Which abilities can be developed through real assignments now?
Readiness can also become confused with resemblance. A successor may approach risk, relationships or growth differently from the founder. The relevant test is whether that approach fits the enterprise’s future requirements and the responsibilities of the role.
Replace inference with inquiry
Family members often avoid direct questions because they expect the answers to be uncomfortable. In the absence of a conversation, assumptions gradually acquire the status of facts.
“What kind of transition do you feel ready for?” can reveal considerably more than a general question about willingness to step aside. It allows the founder to distinguish between day-to-day authority, consequential decisions, external relationships, ownership and personal identity.
A useful discussion might include these questions:
• What would the founder like to see happen over the next several years?
• What does the potential successor truly want?
• What still benefits from the founder’s involvement?
• What could move now?
• Which decisions belong to management, and which belong to ownership?
• What evidence of readiness matters, and has it ever been discussed explicitly?
In the family described above, the answers changed the picture. The founder was more open to reducing day-to-day involvement than others expected, provided that responsibilities and safeguards were clear. The successor wanted greater authority but did not want to reproduce the founder’s job exactly. The enterprise still benefited from the founder’s relationships, historical knowledge, and judgment in a few consequential areas.
Once those distinctions were visible, the family no longer had to choose between two complete packages: founder in charge or founder gone; successor waiting or successor fully responsible.
Find what can move now
A transition can begin before every question has been answered. The founder does not need a fully formed “next chapter” before some responsibilities can move. The family can identify decisions the successor is ready to make, establish where consultation is required, and specify the circumstances that call for the founder’s involvement. Real responsibility provides better evidence of readiness than another general discussion about potential.
Ownership and management also need separate consideration. A founder may leave an operating role while continuing to contribute as an owner, chair, director or advisor. A next-generation family member may assume management authority while remaining one voice among several owners. Other family members may have legitimate interests in the future of the enterprise without participating in its daily operation.
No final succession date emerged from the initial conversation. The family did, however, agree on responsibilities that could transfer, areas where the founder’s involvement remained useful, and evidence they would examine before expanding the successor’s authority. The transition had begun to move because the choice now reflected the actual work, interests and concerns involved.
Changing the choice changes the work. It replaces a verdict about two people with a series of decisions about roles, authority, timing, contribution, and ownership. Some answers may still be “not yet.” That answer becomes more useful when the family can say what is not ready, what evidence is missing and what experience could provide it.
When succession feels stuck, examine the choice itself. Direct discussion of what each person wants, what the enterprise needs and which responsibilities can move now often reveals possibilities that the original succession question kept out of view.
Paul Edelman, PhD, PCC, is an executive coach, facilitator, and family enterprise advisor with Edelman and Associates. He helps families, family offices, and multigenerational enterprises navigate consequential decisions involving succession, governance, ownership, and leadership transitions. He is a faculty member of the Ultra High Net Worth Institute and an Entrepreneur in Residence at Babson College’s Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship.
Get our new quarterly newsletter about philanthropy: Canadian Family Offices’ philanthropy newsletter brings you key insights, trends and expert perspectives on charitable giving, tailored to Canada’s wealth leaders and giving communities. Click here to subscribe now to stay ahead.
Please visit here to see information about our standards of journalistic excellence.