Family Dynamics
Appreciating family dynamics is a crucial step in understanding the family business. Too often the absence of an interest in how families are structured and how their members interact leads to unwarranted conclusions on the part of consultants as well as family members. What has taken the place of understanding, and continues to do so, is both the dark pleasure with which colorful accounts in newspapers and magazines of the collapse of a family business are received and the professional literature that pounces on designated individuals as the source of family business difficulties. Both sources fail to understand how family dynamics have allowed or supported the actions of the designated “failure” and how that individual’s behavior is a symptom of his family’s internal dynamics.
The classic example of this lack of understanding is the son who, having succeeded his father as president of the family business, runs it into the ground and bankrupts it apparently because of his inadequacy as a businessman. It is easy to assert that “he just didn’t have his father’s touch,” when in fact the father might have failed to reinvest in the firm and modernize, choosing instead to milk the firm to support his wife’s extravagances and their lifestyle. Even if the assumption is that the son did not possess the qualifications required to manage the business, a question to ask is, why wasn’t this acknowledged when succession occurred? Who promoted the candidacy of the successor in the face of evidence that he was not capable? And if evidence of his ability one way or the other was not gathered, why the omission? In other words, what in the family allowed this to happen?
Delving into similar situations soon makes it apparent that understanding family dynamics clarifies the many strands leading to business outcomes both positive and negative. For example, the contribution and influence of those family members not active in the business are easily overlooked. As discussed later, spouses not only of the owner but of offspring need to be considered—they are part of the dynamic picture.
“Understanding” does not necessarily mean plumbing the depths of family dynamics, nor ministering to it therapeutically. It does mean being able to stand back and scan the family horizon with an awareness and appreciation of its complex relationship to the business.
A bit of psychotherapy history will underscore the importance of family dynamics in learning about the family firm. Traditionally and popularly, a person demonstrating “psychological” problems is viewed as an entity unto himself or herself. He or she is treated for these problems in individual psychotherapy and is seen by the public as possessing the psychological problem “inside of him or her.” The family is not seen as being involved in the problem—neither contributing to it, supporting it, nor needing it. And if some would grant the problem as possibly having been “delivered” by an alcoholic mother or an abusive father, clearly their current involvement in the problems of the individual is seen as minimal, if present at all.
Family therapy began to flower in the early 1960s as an alternative to this “blame the individual” way of thinking. With a great deal of research and experience behind it, the family therapy movement focused on how psychological problems in individuals were a function of family dynamics, not only created in its crucible, but also nourished and supported by it throughout its development. Even adults who have separated from their families came to be seen as “carrying” around their family dynamics in their psyches and acting accordingly.
This view, albeit sketchy and terse, has been modified in recent years with additional research and experience. However, the outlines of this way of looking at individuals within a family remain and serve as a powerful alternative to an individual psychology that is more popular, more easily accepted, and clearly more widespread. The individual psychology view does not threaten people like a true appreciation of family dynamics does. The emphasis on the individual does not entail self-analysis by other family members—it is reserved for the identified problem person, the individual with the problem.
The family therapy view grew out of a need to deal more successfully with psychopathology. The underlying theory has expanded since its inception to take into account other factors such as genetics and biological changes.
Content and Process
Many professionals in the family business arena have heard the widely repeated adage, “The family is a system.” What does that mean?
Essentially this phrase summarizes a point of view that suggests that any behavior in one person affects everyone else in the family, and vice versa. These transactions occur through behaviors, either conscious or unconscious, that are perceived by others as being meaningful. A short-hand term for these interactions is the “interpersonal process.” There are many analogies that have been used to describe this process, none of which fully captures the complexity of family, but each of which adds something to its understanding.
For example, one analogy is that the family is like an orchestra with each instrument adding color to the whole. Any change in the color contributed by one instrument changes the complexion of the entire production—thus the importance of the role of any one family member and its influence on the family. Another analogy captures the element of “influence” and “feedback” that is prevalent in all systems, the family included. A frequently cited example is that of the thermostatically controlled heating system: When the temperature fluctuates between the boundaries of a thermostat, the furnace is triggered to turn on or off, bringing the temperature back within the desired range.
For our purposes, a workable statement is that the family as a system tends to display consistent and stylistic patterns of relationships and behavior that persist over time. Within these relationships, family members tend to play consistent and stylistic roles (e.g., “the serious one,” “the playful one,” “the cheerleader,” “the peacemaker”). When a family member steps outside her role, the system works to pull her back into it, much like the functioning of a thermostat. These roles tend to become lifelong patterns of behavior and the actors (i.e., the family members) tend to choose as their marital partners spouses whose own roles in their family of origin tend to synchronize with theirs in some way.
Note that these tendencies describe a wide range of behaviors in a wide range of arenas. For example, the son who has grown into the role of “the peacemaker” not only is geared to stopping his parents from fighting between themselves but also brings this role to the schoolyard among his friends, to the workplace as an adult, and to his profession. In other words, his role is independent of the content area in which he finds himself. The argument or threat of conflict can be about anything, prompting him to play out his role. “Interpersonal process” refers to this overarching style that disregards the specific content of the argument.
Predicting the role an offspring will assume is made very difficult by all the numerous variables affecting human behavior, such as anatomy, genetics, outside-the-family contacts, and the like. Thus the only child of a couple that fight all the time might be predicted to assume the role of “peacemaker,” but instead becomes a bully both at home and in the schoolyard, and as he grows older. Why? What prompted him to take on the mantle of a bully?
In general, the value of predicting, classifying, and hypothesizing lies not in being right in one’s predictions, comprehensive in one’s classification system, nor perceptive in one’s hypotheses, but rather in presenting a model—a template—against which actual observed behavior can be compared. Discrepancies, which will always appear, heighten our sensitivity about behavior and prompt us to ask more questions and scan more broadly, thereby providing more insights that can be used in interventions.
What follows, then, is a model of family dynamics that is comprehensive enough to aid in understanding family businesses and useful enough to guide interventions, but it is not meant to constitute either the “last word” or the entire story.
Marriage Types
Utilizing the assumptions that the family consists of stylistic patterns of relationships and that family members assume consistent roles, how do parental marriage types affect the roles that children assume? A useful typology of marriages has three categories: conflictual, overadequate/underadequate, and united front. A “normal” marriage is one that is able to navigate between all three styles, as and when appropriate. The more a marriage adheres to only one form, the more problematic the marriage. The definitions given here are of the paradigmatic cases or extreme instances in order to make the distinctions clear.
The parents who fall under the rubric of a conflictual marriage fight over anything and everything, from who will be taking the garbage out to which house to buy, from the mundane to the extremely important. The intent of each partner is to be “right” and to prove the other “wrong.” Their competitiveness can exhibit itself in any and all domains of living. In many instances both parents have lived in homes where being “right” was the purview of their parents and where they were somehow always wrong.
The overadequate/underadequate couple have unwittingly agreed to playing specific roles vis-à-vis each other—the one who is the “leader,” “always right,” “who looks put together,” as opposed to the spouse who has been designated as “the follower,” “not up to making decisions,” “featherbrained.” These designations are not meant to imply the actual abilities of either partner but rather refer to the assigned roles they have agreed to play at home, in public, or both. The classic example is that of the husband qua business tycoon and the southern belle of a wife who ostensibly cannot make up her mind about anything.
The roles need not be gender dependent. In many instances it is the wife who appears overadequate and the husband who is the underadequate doormat. Nor do the public and private persona need to be consistent—the tycoon businessman may well be the underadequate spouse at home. A switch in roles from accustomed positions is frequently seen with the death of a spouse, where the previously “dumb blonde” becomes the accomplished head of her deceased husband’s business. The dynamic underlying this type of relationship is the mutual feeling that in order to survive as a couple, one has to give in to the other “all the time.” The message that controls their style of living is that a marriage can be sustained only if there is one leader at a time and the leader is not to be challenged by his or her spouse. Otherwise their marriage will become a conflictual one, with havoc and divorce surely following. The position one assumes (i.e., who is the one who appears overadequate and who underadequate) may persist over a wide range of situations and decisions, or may vary with the particular situation—thus the aggressive overadequate businessman in the office appears underadequate at home.
The major and most significant consequence of these role assumptions is that giving in all the time, especially when a person feels he or she is right and has something to say, is a difficult stance to sustain. Resentment builds up and requires an outlet. This can take the form of passive resistance and passive undermining of the overadequate spouse.
The united front couple, the third type of marriage, is admired by those outside looking in for the apparently total absence of disagreement in their relationship. However, consider what allows a total lack of even normal disagreement to live in a marriage. This means that a spouse cannot have any view independent of his or her mate. Were there to be potential disagreement on the horizon, the spouse would have to either deny his or her position or change opinions to be in compliance with his or her mate. Each has to be continually on guard against even the appearance of potential disagreement. All this results in a perennial and low-grade anxiety state. This type of couple fears disagreement because, for them, disagreement is equivalent to anger, and anger is destructive. In their minds there is a straight-line cause-and-effect relationship between “disagreement” and “destructiveness.”
The normal marriage is characterized by parents who can disagree and not feel it is the end of the world, can give in to each other and not feel that one’s integrity is at stake by doing so, can lead without being a dictator, and can follow when the other person functions as leader. To repeat, the normal marriage has the attributes of all three categories, though it may tend to concentrate in one category. Couples whose relationship is problematic have to function in only one category, with very little toe-dipping in the other areas.
The Influence of Marriage Type on Offspring
The type of marriage affects offspring for better or worse. This statement is not meant to downplay the crucial influence genetics and heredity, as well as the wider environment, have on role and personality. Rather, the intent is to underline how marriage type can and does influence (not determine) the family business through its impact on offspring.
Any group like a family develops patterns of relationships, an aspect of which are coalitions formed between its members.1 These coalitions can be described from different perspectives. Some coalitions may be created to exercise power over others. Some involve identification with coalition partners and misidentification with the others. Closeness and affinity might characterize a coalition, whereas distance and resentment could describe a coalition formed against others in the family. The descriptors that can be used to characterize the different coalitions within a family are many indeed. As coalitions develop, they influence the adoption of different roles played by the family members.
In the one-child family, the roles (as noted in Table 3.1) tend to emerge in the presence of the three types of marriages. The only child of a conflictual marriage learns to play the role of peacemaker, of judge and jury, continually trying either to make peace or to adjudicate the arguments. The child is drawn into the fighting almost by default. In not wanting to become identified as being on one side or the other, the only child tries to avoid forming a coalition with either parent but frequently cannot avoid it. Many situations allow the child to escape outside the family or, metaphorically speaking, into his or her “room,” for example, by becoming very academic, developing a skill or pastime that is so time consuming that it drowns out the noise. But notwithstanding which role emerges (i.e., the offspring qua peacemaker or offspring qua “escapee”), both roles are prompted (not determined) by family dynamics.
The accumulating resentment built up within the overadequate/underadequate marriage seeps into the parents’ relationships with their offspring. Several possibilities emerge over time. The underadequate parent often seeks solace by tending to and focusing on the child’s needs, thereby building a close relationship, a coalition. The resentment he or she experiences in the marriage often takes the form of having the child act as the rebel or advocate in his or her stead against the overadequate spouse. The result is that the child and the overadequate spouse tend to develop an acrimonious relationship. Frequently the sex of the child determines how the roles develop, so that, for example, the female offspring develops a close relationship and coalition with the father, identifies with him and serves as his foil against the underadequate mother, swearing never to become like her.
The united front relationship, as indicated earlier, is a continual struggle to appear in agreement at all times about everything. The parents strive to protect this coalition against any threat presented, one of the most serious threats being disagreement about how to raise their child. As a consequence, the child can assume a great deal of power over the parental coalition. The only child assumes one of two very extreme positions: becoming the “star” that binds the parents even more tightly and confirms their presumed status as an ideal couple or becoming the incompetent and inadequate scapegoat who binds them as a couple because of their need to focus heavily on the child’s deficiencies and problems. By focusing their exclusive attention on their offspring, whether the “star” or the problem child, they can avoid dealing with the tension within their marriage that results from working overtime to deny conflict. The power the child assumes lies in the fact that the role he or she assumes is crucial to the success of the parental coalition.
The two-child family (Table 3.2) disperses roles a bit differently, the result being that roles become more specialized. For example, one child in the united front marriage might become the “star” and the other the problem child.
The three-child family (Table 3.3) continues the role specialization seen in the two-child family but adds more roles. For example, the conflictual marriage has all the appearances of a courtroom—each child becomes the “defense lawyer” for one of the two parents, thereby forming a coalition, with the third child in the role of judge. The other two marriages—overadequate/underadequate and united front—allow the third child to “escape” (i.e., either literally or figuratively).
As noted earlier, spouses in a normal marriage display characteristics of all three types of marriages. Although this does blur the lines of the roles their offspring play, the outlines of the roles mentioned here are still observable. Also, the coalitions formed between family members are very elastic and depend a great deal on the situation rather than on the family member alone. The normal offspring, though playing discernable roles, are not bound to play only those roles. Like their normal parents, they are able to experiment with aspects of different roles. Offspring of more questionable marriages do not have this luxury.
Influence of Family Dynamics on Business Issues
The outcomes and solutions to the various tasks that family businesses undertake often appear straightforward and commonsensical. The problem, of course, is that what seems, on the surface, to be the “logical” thing is not pursued. This is where understanding something of family dynamics clarifies a family’s illogical choices, decisions, and behaviors.
Here is another case:
In another situation…
In applying the overview of family dynamics presented earlier, we can begin to develop an appreciation of what might be involved in these situations. The first situation has two brothers becoming copresidents. Their parents were in a conflictual marriage, with the sons each forming a relationship with one of the parents and taking that parent’s side. Each parent insisted on his or her favorite inheriting the business reins. To avoid further conflict or threat of dissolution of the business and marriage, the parents agreed to a copresidency as a compromise even though the danger signs of such a decision were obvious.
The second business situation has parents who were in an overadequate/underadequate relationship. The heir apparent was mother’s favorite, as well as very competent. He was mother’s defender, taking her side whenever father belittled her or otherwise demeaned her. He and father were constantly at war with each other. Mother finally had it with her husband’s philandering and warned him that unless he discontinued his current extramarital relationship she would sue for divorce. Father thought long and hard and finally decided that he really wanted to stay with his girlfriend, and initiated divorce proceedings. The fighting between father and son escalated, father fired son and installed a nonfamily member as president, the mother countersued, and on and on and on.
Another way of looking at what had occurred is that the previously underadequate wife had had enough of kowtowing to and being embarrassed by her husband. She decided to stand on her own two feet and assume a more determined and decisive stance in her life. Her husband felt threatened by this show of independence and decided to stay with his mistress (who, by the way, was willing to play underadequate to his apparent need to remain overadequate) despite his awareness of the danger to the business. The son being removed as president was a sidebar to the marital drama.
The three sons in the third business situation all had worked in the business since their teenage years. The parents had a united front marriage in which disagreement was banished from their relationship. Choosing a successor could have prompted a war among the children, and, for the parents, “could” was equivalent to “would.” This fear prevented the father from choosing a successor, despite the fact that only one of the sons was up to the task of president. Mother stepped in at the death of her husband to keep the peace. However, she really did not understand the business and its marketplace. Consequently the fortunes of the business began to decline. Finally the son who understood the business threatened to leave unless he became president. For the sake of survival they all agreed, but at the cost of any sense, much less pretense, of family unity.
In summary, then, being aware of the impact family dynamics has on a business allows an appreciation of why many otherwise successful firms go haywire, why seemingly easy decision making can become difficult, why best efforts in developing succession plans may amount to little, why families end up in court—in brief, why the statistics on the perpetuation of family businesses are not so attractive.
An important aside is appropriate here and applies to both previous and subsequent case studies. The interpretations offered are only one aspect of the situations described. There are other significant psychological and interpersonal issues being played out in these scenarios other than the ones noted. Since we are not engaged in a psychological treatise, the range of explanations is grounded in those that pertain directly to business issues.
Why Enter the Family Business in the First Place?
If the public reports and warnings give the impression that there are more conflict-laden family businesses than otherwise, then why do family members choose to go into business together? Is financial security or ambition sufficient motivation to overcome the expected stress of being in a business with one’s family? Surely easier and less bruising ways exist to earn a living.
An uncommon interpretation of the attraction family businesses hold for relatives, particularly sons and daughters, is that entering an already-established family business or being invited in is intended as a positive attempt to achieve emotional closure of a wide variety of issues—to resolve family emotional issues, close gaps in relationships, and strengthen tenuous connections, among others. These issues are seen as not otherwise resolvable except by entering the business, because that is where the founding parent spends most of his time; if these issues are to be resolved, that arena is where satisfaction will be found. Although this assertion focuses on the father, it should be understood that he represents only half of the picture, but the half that tends to be absent more often. This is not to deny that other motives for entering the family business exist, but alongside and prompting these other motives lies the desire of offspring, siblings, in-laws, and parents, in varying combinations, to resolve family dilemmas, from the minor to the most intense.
Sometimes the psychological issues and conflicts border the conscious. It may be the goal of a father to give his aimless-appearing son a last chance, “but this time I won’t let my wife interfere and baby him!” A mother may appeal to her son to enter the business, or reenter the business he had previously left in a huff, in order to rescue it, thereby saving father from facing the effects of his bullheadedness. A son in a close harmonious relationship with his father both in and out of the family business may know that at some point he will need to assert his independence from his father, and a business decision may be the vehicle for accomplishing that. A daughter, in seeking the presidency of the family business after having proven her worth to the company, may be attempting to wrangle from her father acknowledgment of her competency and acceptance of her as his “emotional” heir, while father still cannot bring himself to entertain the possibility that a “mere woman” could fill his shoes. Or the grandchildren of the founding father may be fighting among themselves the battle their fathers, the founder’s sons, never resolved—issues such as who was or is his favorite, righting perceived wrongs that were perpetrated upon their father by their grandfather, or seeking revenge on behalf of their father for grandfather divorcing grandmother to marry another woman.
The threads of family and business are intertwined in such a way that the family emotional issues are sometimes not immediately apparent.
Many times denial of these psychological issues causes decision making to go awry to the point that the business deteriorates, requiring bankers, friends, creditors, or stockholders to intervene. For many family businesses, only these dramatic consequences uncover the psychological themes underlying the business decline.
Regardless of the degree of awareness involved or the interwoven character of business and personal issues in any family business, one strong motivation to enter a family business is an attempt on the part of a son or daughter to resolve a personal issue usually involving father. Decisions family members make to ensure the firm’s viability become a powerful and dramatic stage on which resolution or efforts toward that end can be enacted. Family business succession becomes the most meaningful opportunity for these enactments. Succession reveals feelings and attitudes in a direct way reflected in clearly observable behavior on the part of both parent and offspring.
The Role of Father
Succession and transition highlight a key role that father plays in the intersection between family and business.2 From the beginning of the business, father has had a foot in both camps. He can separate the office from the family. He does not have to bring home business concerns. Until another family member, usually a son or daughter, enters the business, he can keep the dynamics of both entities relatively separate. With the entrance of a family member, the father is given a new role. He now has to bridge the two entities. He is no longer simply a father to his offspring—he now also assumes the role of boss. As a parent, he and his wife provide emotional support; they are teachers and protectors. As their offspring grow and enter the world, the parents’ immediate oversight of the child’s behavior slowly diminishes, a process universally known as “becoming independent.”
However, as boss, father assumes a different role that integrates his previous two roles—as father and as boss. Now he is directly responsible for the son’s or daughter’s behavior even though his oversight may be mediated through managers and supervisors. The father–child relationship assumes a new dimension in which the offspring’s behavior in the business directly affects the business. How does father navigate between the two roles and develop a new role that integrates them?
The father’s view of the business, his value system, will determine to a great extent how he defines his new role. If he values the firm strictly as an investment, his involvement with an offspring may be simply as an employer—his lack of commitment to the continuation of the business does not easily translate into viewing the son or daughter as a potential partner or successor. Viewing the business as a refuge, as an employment opportunity for a son or daughter who does not have the requisite ability to become a successor, could be seen as a parent perpetuating his family role as protector and not necessarily embracing the new integrated role.
The business as a status symbol may provide the occasion for role integration, depending on how significant status has become. The maintenance of status already bridges the two contexts, family and business. Status in both is an important value. The greater the emphasis on status, the less of a need on the part of father to develop a new integrated role—he already has a role that he is playing.
Viewing the business as a business, as a heritage, or as an inheritance provides the most salient opportunity and impetus for the father to learn to integrate the roles of parent and boss. In each he has to learn new behavior to fulfill the integrated role. In each he has to learn different ways of relating to the offspring. In this period of new learning resides the opportunity for father and offspring to work through psychological issues that may have plagued them earlier.
Role integration on the part of father entails redefining his relationship with his offspring. This involves, among other things, the difficult task of melding a respect for the offspring’s sense of independence (and not rushing in to protect him or her), an awareness of the offspring’s lack of business experience (while not expecting him to learn by osmosis), and the need to have the business run appropriately (and not being overly critical when a mistake is made) while conveying knowledge3 about the running of the business.
Another dilemma facing father is how to mediate between managers and the offspring who are being supervised by them. Father’s evaluation of the son or daughter may not agree with that of the manager. If there is a discrepancy, what does this say about father and his relationship to the offspring?
Another issue owners have to confront is the new light in which their spouses now see the business when a son or daughter enters the business. Whereas before a spouse had little information when talking about the firm except what her spouse chose to report, now she has reports (sometimes even daily reports) about the business, how this manager or that one is doing, and, in particular, how father as president is doing. In other words, the bridge between family and home has grown broader, with more information traveling across it. Father’s behavior, his decision making, his actions vis-à-vis employees now may become topics of conversation at home.
Each of these issues—becoming the boss of an offspring, viewing the offspring through the lens of someone else, dealing with a spouse who has a new source of information—makes it imperative that the owner define a new role for himself, one that integrates the roles of father and boss. This new integrated role provides a father and offspring a way to work through the psychological issues between them, perhaps for the first time.
In some family business situations the father never really dons the mantle of the integrated role of father and boss. Instead, the father gradually turns over the reins to his intended successor while avoiding any conflicts, disagreements, or differences of opinion. A working through of their relationship is bypassed and they essentially tread paths going in different directions, the father hastening his retirement from the business and the son or daughter gathering more of the reins. This seems to occur when the father is simply tired of fighting business battles and welcomes relinquishing his chair to his offspring. He has emotionally distanced himself from the business. Although a relatively easy and hassle-free succession, it can and, in some instances, does leave many psychological, interpersonal, and family issues unresolved.