Three generations working together in a workshop

Oct 12, 2026

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Loyalty to the family is a virtue. But running a company requires a competence different from love, sacrifice and a surname. The real question of succession is not who will sit in the chair, but who will carry the responsibility of that chair.

Strategy

Family Businesses

Merit & Succession

Problem

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

A father founds a company. For years he works, takes risks, pays off debts and lives through crises. One day he wants his son or daughter to stand beside him. There is nothing wrong with this wish. In fact, it is one of the most human sources of motivation for a business to survive across generations. The problem begins when it is assumed that the family bond turns directly into management competence.

Being a good child and being a good general manager are not the result of the same test. A good child respects the family, stands by it in hard times and values a shared past. A good manager, on the other hand, decides with incomplete information, chooses people, allocates resources and, when necessary, defends with reasons decisions that even family members do not agree with. One is a responsibility aimed at protecting the relationship, the other at producing results. It is possible to see both in the same person; but there is no guarantee.

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

In family businesses the same person wears three different hats: a member of the family, possibly a shareholder of the company, and possibly the holder of a role in the business. When the rights of these identities are mixed up, personal resentments replace the performance discussion. It is natural for a child to be a shareholder; but to be a manager they must demonstrate the necessary competences. The right of ownership and the right to manage cannot be used interchangeably.

Think, for example, of two siblings from the second generation. One has managed the sales team for five years; the other has just finished their academic education. Giving both the title of "deputy general manager" may create a sense of equality within the family. But if authority and responsibility are not separated, employees do not know whose decision will prevail. While one sibling actually carries the operation, the other receives the same managerial credit. In the end this arrangement does not even protect family fairness.

Equal love in the family does not mean equal titles at work. The way to protect fairness is to announce the criteria for management roles in advance.

Causes

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

The founder has usually been the company's first and best salesperson, buyer, collector and crisis manager. When they hand over management one day, they naturally compare their successor with themselves. But time, the market and the scale of the company have changed. While the founder's strong period required direct relationships and fast intuitive decisions, the second generation's period may require data, digital competence, multi-channel and organisational management.

Instead of looking for a copy, a needs analysis should be done. What is the company's biggest risk over the next five years? Cash management, branding, international growth or process discipline? The profile of the next leader should be defined through these questions. The criterion "let them be like me" produces nostalgia; the criterion "let them carry the competences the company needs" builds the future.

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

A family member may enter the organisation at a high position; but they cannot sustain the trust of the store manager, the factory supervisor or the finance director with a surname alone. Employees watch: Does this manager listen to bad news? Do they correct a wrong decision? Do they take responsibility? Do they look down on long-serving employees who know a lot? Is their own performance monitored too?

Studies published in Harvard Business Review on the merit-versus-inheritance dilemma in family businesses point out that the institutional acceptance of the new generation must be managed separately. Announcing succession and gaining legitimacy are different stages. Board approval can come in a day; the trust of colleagues is built through an accumulation of behaviour.

That is why a family member's entry into the company requires more care than an ordinary hire. A wrong choice affects not just one position, but also the family relationship and other employees' belief in their future.

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

I propose a start with four conditions. First condition: outside experience. If possible, they should have reported to a real manager outside the family company and experienced both success and failure. Second condition: competence inventory. Education, expertise, leadership and communication abilities should be compared with the requirements of a defined role. Third condition: gradual authority. They should manage a small but real budget, team or commercial responsibility. Fourth condition: independent evaluation. Non-family managers and, if possible, an independent board member should contribute to the performance evaluation.

At the same time, there must be an honourable path for family members who want to be part of the family but do not want an executive role. Shareholding, representation on the board, a family council or social responsibility activities can be alternatives to every family member running daily operations. No one has to manage a sales team just because they carry the surname.

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

Consider an entirely hypothetical textile manufacturer. The founder's child is very strong in product development and technical production; but their experience in sales negotiation, store economics and team leadership is limited. Because the second generation has arrived, the family appoints them "general manager responsible for commerce". Six months later stock is piling up, store performance is falling and terms with distributors are deteriorating. The problem is not the person's good intentions; it is the mismatch between competence and role.

The same person could be very valuable as the leader responsible for product innovation, while an independent professional runs the commercial structure. The way to protect the value the family has built is not to seat everyone in the same chair, but to recognise everyone's real area of contribution.

Two executives walking in front of a corporate building

In Depth

How is a performance scorecard built?

The evaluation of a senior family manager should not consist of revenue alone. Alongside financial results, customer, organisation, process and strategic transformation indicators should be included. If they are responsible for sales: net sales, gross profit contribution, collections, customer retention and team development; if an operations manager: delivery reliability, stock accuracy, cost, quality and occupational safety. The measurement period, data source and scope of authority should be stated from the start.

For family members the criteria should not be looser but more transparent. The purpose is not to punish, but to let them earn their reputation beyond dispute. Just as results cannot be demanded from someone who is not given authority, unlimited authority cannot be given to someone who does not produce results.

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

The visible argument is often about a campaign budget, a new ERP selection or a store opening plan. The real tension, however, is often hidden in this sentence: "Will the company continue as I built it, or will it now be run with a different mind?" For the founder, change can sound like a criticism of their life's work. For the new generation, not being able to object can feel like being sentenced to a symbolic position.

Both sides need to be understood. The founder has a risk memory from the past; the new generation may have the capacity to read the future. The solution is not to argue until one side wins, but to agree on decision rights. A strategic capital investment may be a family/board decision; a digital marketing campaign within an approved budget can remain in the executive team's domain. Without boundaries, even love may not prevent conflict.

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Days 0–30: Role and competence assessment. Which roles family members hold, the real expectations of the work and their level of readiness for succession are made visible. What the family wants and what the company needs are recorded separately. For critical positions, not only a single successor but also an interim management scenario is defined.

Days 31–60: Development and trial assignment. Each candidate takes measurable responsibility for a real performance problem. For example, store stock availability, the feasibility of a new export market or the customer complaint resolution process. Evaluation is based not only on results, but on decision quality and team behaviour.

Days 61–90: Independent observation and transition map. The board evaluates candidates' strengths and areas for development. The stages of the transfer of authority, the founder's advisory role, the decision forum for unresolved disagreements and the conditions for reversal are put in writing. Ninety days are not the whole of succession; they are the start of talking about reality.

Roadmap

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Does the company need a person who grew up beside me, or the leader the business requires? Am I giving my child authority here that I would not give at another company? Can their performance really be challenged? Is the path to promotion open for a successful professional from outside the family? How are decisions made when I am not around?

The answers to these questions may be uncomfortable. But the cost of postponed answers is often greater than the cost of a management appointment.

Conclusion

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

The most valuable legacy a founder can give their child is not a position, but a sustainable institution. The manager of that institution may come from the family or from outside. What matters is that the company's fate rests not on the search for balance at the family table, but on the balance between competence and responsibility.

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

No. Shareholding and executive management can be separated; not every family member has to take a management role.

When should the second generation be given authority?

Gradually, once competences matching the needs of the business, a measurable trial responsibility and a reporting mechanism are in place.

How should a family member's salary be set?

It should be based on the market value and performance of the executive role; dividend/shareholding income should not be mixed with salary.

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Yes; but decision rights and reporting lines must not be left unclear.

Sources and further reading

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Loyalty to the family is a virtue. But running a company requires a competence different from love, sacrifice and a surname. The real question of succession is not who will sit in the chair, but who will carry the responsibility of that chair.

Strategy

Family Businesses

Merit & Succession

Problem

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

A father founds a company. For years he works, takes risks, pays off debts and lives through crises. One day he wants his son or daughter to stand beside him. There is nothing wrong with this wish. In fact, it is one of the most human sources of motivation for a business to survive across generations. The problem begins when it is assumed that the family bond turns directly into management competence.

Being a good child and being a good general manager are not the result of the same test. A good child respects the family, stands by it in hard times and values a shared past. A good manager, on the other hand, decides with incomplete information, chooses people, allocates resources and, when necessary, defends with reasons decisions that even family members do not agree with. One is a responsibility aimed at protecting the relationship, the other at producing results. It is possible to see both in the same person; but there is no guarantee.

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

In family businesses the same person wears three different hats: a member of the family, possibly a shareholder of the company, and possibly the holder of a role in the business. When the rights of these identities are mixed up, personal resentments replace the performance discussion. It is natural for a child to be a shareholder; but to be a manager they must demonstrate the necessary competences. The right of ownership and the right to manage cannot be used interchangeably.

Think, for example, of two siblings from the second generation. One has managed the sales team for five years; the other has just finished their academic education. Giving both the title of "deputy general manager" may create a sense of equality within the family. But if authority and responsibility are not separated, employees do not know whose decision will prevail. While one sibling actually carries the operation, the other receives the same managerial credit. In the end this arrangement does not even protect family fairness.

Equal love in the family does not mean equal titles at work. The way to protect fairness is to announce the criteria for management roles in advance.

Causes

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

The founder has usually been the company's first and best salesperson, buyer, collector and crisis manager. When they hand over management one day, they naturally compare their successor with themselves. But time, the market and the scale of the company have changed. While the founder's strong period required direct relationships and fast intuitive decisions, the second generation's period may require data, digital competence, multi-channel and organisational management.

Instead of looking for a copy, a needs analysis should be done. What is the company's biggest risk over the next five years? Cash management, branding, international growth or process discipline? The profile of the next leader should be defined through these questions. The criterion "let them be like me" produces nostalgia; the criterion "let them carry the competences the company needs" builds the future.

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

A family member may enter the organisation at a high position; but they cannot sustain the trust of the store manager, the factory supervisor or the finance director with a surname alone. Employees watch: Does this manager listen to bad news? Do they correct a wrong decision? Do they take responsibility? Do they look down on long-serving employees who know a lot? Is their own performance monitored too?

Studies published in Harvard Business Review on the merit-versus-inheritance dilemma in family businesses point out that the institutional acceptance of the new generation must be managed separately. Announcing succession and gaining legitimacy are different stages. Board approval can come in a day; the trust of colleagues is built through an accumulation of behaviour.

That is why a family member's entry into the company requires more care than an ordinary hire. A wrong choice affects not just one position, but also the family relationship and other employees' belief in their future.

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

I propose a start with four conditions. First condition: outside experience. If possible, they should have reported to a real manager outside the family company and experienced both success and failure. Second condition: competence inventory. Education, expertise, leadership and communication abilities should be compared with the requirements of a defined role. Third condition: gradual authority. They should manage a small but real budget, team or commercial responsibility. Fourth condition: independent evaluation. Non-family managers and, if possible, an independent board member should contribute to the performance evaluation.

At the same time, there must be an honourable path for family members who want to be part of the family but do not want an executive role. Shareholding, representation on the board, a family council or social responsibility activities can be alternatives to every family member running daily operations. No one has to manage a sales team just because they carry the surname.

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

Consider an entirely hypothetical textile manufacturer. The founder's child is very strong in product development and technical production; but their experience in sales negotiation, store economics and team leadership is limited. Because the second generation has arrived, the family appoints them "general manager responsible for commerce". Six months later stock is piling up, store performance is falling and terms with distributors are deteriorating. The problem is not the person's good intentions; it is the mismatch between competence and role.

The same person could be very valuable as the leader responsible for product innovation, while an independent professional runs the commercial structure. The way to protect the value the family has built is not to seat everyone in the same chair, but to recognise everyone's real area of contribution.

In Depth

How is a performance scorecard built?

The evaluation of a senior family manager should not consist of revenue alone. Alongside financial results, customer, organisation, process and strategic transformation indicators should be included. If they are responsible for sales: net sales, gross profit contribution, collections, customer retention and team development; if an operations manager: delivery reliability, stock accuracy, cost, quality and occupational safety. The measurement period, data source and scope of authority should be stated from the start.

For family members the criteria should not be looser but more transparent. The purpose is not to punish, but to let them earn their reputation beyond dispute. Just as results cannot be demanded from someone who is not given authority, unlimited authority cannot be given to someone who does not produce results.

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

The visible argument is often about a campaign budget, a new ERP selection or a store opening plan. The real tension, however, is often hidden in this sentence: "Will the company continue as I built it, or will it now be run with a different mind?" For the founder, change can sound like a criticism of their life's work. For the new generation, not being able to object can feel like being sentenced to a symbolic position.

Both sides need to be understood. The founder has a risk memory from the past; the new generation may have the capacity to read the future. The solution is not to argue until one side wins, but to agree on decision rights. A strategic capital investment may be a family/board decision; a digital marketing campaign within an approved budget can remain in the executive team's domain. Without boundaries, even love may not prevent conflict.

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Days 0–30: Role and competence assessment. Which roles family members hold, the real expectations of the work and their level of readiness for succession are made visible. What the family wants and what the company needs are recorded separately. For critical positions, not only a single successor but also an interim management scenario is defined.

Days 31–60: Development and trial assignment. Each candidate takes measurable responsibility for a real performance problem. For example, store stock availability, the feasibility of a new export market or the customer complaint resolution process. Evaluation is based not only on results, but on decision quality and team behaviour.

Days 61–90: Independent observation and transition map. The board evaluates candidates' strengths and areas for development. The stages of the transfer of authority, the founder's advisory role, the decision forum for unresolved disagreements and the conditions for reversal are put in writing. Ninety days are not the whole of succession; they are the start of talking about reality.

Roadmap

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Does the company need a person who grew up beside me, or the leader the business requires? Am I giving my child authority here that I would not give at another company? Can their performance really be challenged? Is the path to promotion open for a successful professional from outside the family? How are decisions made when I am not around?

The answers to these questions may be uncomfortable. But the cost of postponed answers is often greater than the cost of a management appointment.

Conclusion

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

The most valuable legacy a founder can give their child is not a position, but a sustainable institution. The manager of that institution may come from the family or from outside. What matters is that the company's fate rests not on the search for balance at the family table, but on the balance between competence and responsibility.

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

No. Shareholding and executive management can be separated; not every family member has to take a management role.

When should the second generation be given authority?

Gradually, once competences matching the needs of the business, a measurable trial responsibility and a reporting mechanism are in place.

How should a family member's salary be set?

It should be based on the market value and performance of the executive role; dividend/shareholding income should not be mixed with salary.

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Yes; but decision rights and reporting lines must not be left unclear.

Sources and further reading

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Loyalty to the family is a virtue. But running a company requires a competence different from love, sacrifice and a surname. The real question of succession is not who will sit in the chair, but who will carry the responsibility of that chair.

Strategy

Family Businesses

Merit & Succession

Problem

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

A father founds a company. For years he works, takes risks, pays off debts and lives through crises. One day he wants his son or daughter to stand beside him. There is nothing wrong with this wish. In fact, it is one of the most human sources of motivation for a business to survive across generations. The problem begins when it is assumed that the family bond turns directly into management competence.

Being a good child and being a good general manager are not the result of the same test. A good child respects the family, stands by it in hard times and values a shared past. A good manager, on the other hand, decides with incomplete information, chooses people, allocates resources and, when necessary, defends with reasons decisions that even family members do not agree with. One is a responsibility aimed at protecting the relationship, the other at producing results. It is possible to see both in the same person; but there is no guarantee.

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

In family businesses the same person wears three different hats: a member of the family, possibly a shareholder of the company, and possibly the holder of a role in the business. When the rights of these identities are mixed up, personal resentments replace the performance discussion. It is natural for a child to be a shareholder; but to be a manager they must demonstrate the necessary competences. The right of ownership and the right to manage cannot be used interchangeably.

Think, for example, of two siblings from the second generation. One has managed the sales team for five years; the other has just finished their academic education. Giving both the title of "deputy general manager" may create a sense of equality within the family. But if authority and responsibility are not separated, employees do not know whose decision will prevail. While one sibling actually carries the operation, the other receives the same managerial credit. In the end this arrangement does not even protect family fairness.

Equal love in the family does not mean equal titles at work. The way to protect fairness is to announce the criteria for management roles in advance.

Causes

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

The founder has usually been the company's first and best salesperson, buyer, collector and crisis manager. When they hand over management one day, they naturally compare their successor with themselves. But time, the market and the scale of the company have changed. While the founder's strong period required direct relationships and fast intuitive decisions, the second generation's period may require data, digital competence, multi-channel and organisational management.

Instead of looking for a copy, a needs analysis should be done. What is the company's biggest risk over the next five years? Cash management, branding, international growth or process discipline? The profile of the next leader should be defined through these questions. The criterion "let them be like me" produces nostalgia; the criterion "let them carry the competences the company needs" builds the future.

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

A family member may enter the organisation at a high position; but they cannot sustain the trust of the store manager, the factory supervisor or the finance director with a surname alone. Employees watch: Does this manager listen to bad news? Do they correct a wrong decision? Do they take responsibility? Do they look down on long-serving employees who know a lot? Is their own performance monitored too?

Studies published in Harvard Business Review on the merit-versus-inheritance dilemma in family businesses point out that the institutional acceptance of the new generation must be managed separately. Announcing succession and gaining legitimacy are different stages. Board approval can come in a day; the trust of colleagues is built through an accumulation of behaviour.

That is why a family member's entry into the company requires more care than an ordinary hire. A wrong choice affects not just one position, but also the family relationship and other employees' belief in their future.

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

I propose a start with four conditions. First condition: outside experience. If possible, they should have reported to a real manager outside the family company and experienced both success and failure. Second condition: competence inventory. Education, expertise, leadership and communication abilities should be compared with the requirements of a defined role. Third condition: gradual authority. They should manage a small but real budget, team or commercial responsibility. Fourth condition: independent evaluation. Non-family managers and, if possible, an independent board member should contribute to the performance evaluation.

At the same time, there must be an honourable path for family members who want to be part of the family but do not want an executive role. Shareholding, representation on the board, a family council or social responsibility activities can be alternatives to every family member running daily operations. No one has to manage a sales team just because they carry the surname.

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

Consider an entirely hypothetical textile manufacturer. The founder's child is very strong in product development and technical production; but their experience in sales negotiation, store economics and team leadership is limited. Because the second generation has arrived, the family appoints them "general manager responsible for commerce". Six months later stock is piling up, store performance is falling and terms with distributors are deteriorating. The problem is not the person's good intentions; it is the mismatch between competence and role.

The same person could be very valuable as the leader responsible for product innovation, while an independent professional runs the commercial structure. The way to protect the value the family has built is not to seat everyone in the same chair, but to recognise everyone's real area of contribution.

In Depth

How is a performance scorecard built?

The evaluation of a senior family manager should not consist of revenue alone. Alongside financial results, customer, organisation, process and strategic transformation indicators should be included. If they are responsible for sales: net sales, gross profit contribution, collections, customer retention and team development; if an operations manager: delivery reliability, stock accuracy, cost, quality and occupational safety. The measurement period, data source and scope of authority should be stated from the start.

For family members the criteria should not be looser but more transparent. The purpose is not to punish, but to let them earn their reputation beyond dispute. Just as results cannot be demanded from someone who is not given authority, unlimited authority cannot be given to someone who does not produce results.

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

The visible argument is often about a campaign budget, a new ERP selection or a store opening plan. The real tension, however, is often hidden in this sentence: "Will the company continue as I built it, or will it now be run with a different mind?" For the founder, change can sound like a criticism of their life's work. For the new generation, not being able to object can feel like being sentenced to a symbolic position.

Both sides need to be understood. The founder has a risk memory from the past; the new generation may have the capacity to read the future. The solution is not to argue until one side wins, but to agree on decision rights. A strategic capital investment may be a family/board decision; a digital marketing campaign within an approved budget can remain in the executive team's domain. Without boundaries, even love may not prevent conflict.

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Days 0–30: Role and competence assessment. Which roles family members hold, the real expectations of the work and their level of readiness for succession are made visible. What the family wants and what the company needs are recorded separately. For critical positions, not only a single successor but also an interim management scenario is defined.

Days 31–60: Development and trial assignment. Each candidate takes measurable responsibility for a real performance problem. For example, store stock availability, the feasibility of a new export market or the customer complaint resolution process. Evaluation is based not only on results, but on decision quality and team behaviour.

Days 61–90: Independent observation and transition map. The board evaluates candidates' strengths and areas for development. The stages of the transfer of authority, the founder's advisory role, the decision forum for unresolved disagreements and the conditions for reversal are put in writing. Ninety days are not the whole of succession; they are the start of talking about reality.

Roadmap

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Does the company need a person who grew up beside me, or the leader the business requires? Am I giving my child authority here that I would not give at another company? Can their performance really be challenged? Is the path to promotion open for a successful professional from outside the family? How are decisions made when I am not around?

The answers to these questions may be uncomfortable. But the cost of postponed answers is often greater than the cost of a management appointment.

Conclusion

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

The most valuable legacy a founder can give their child is not a position, but a sustainable institution. The manager of that institution may come from the family or from outside. What matters is that the company's fate rests not on the search for balance at the family table, but on the balance between competence and responsibility.

Being a good child is a bond. Being a good manager is a licence that must be earned and kept.

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

No. Shareholding and executive management can be separated; not every family member has to take a management role.

When should the second generation be given authority?

Gradually, once competences matching the needs of the business, a measurable trial responsibility and a reporting mechanism are in place.

How should a family member's salary be set?

It should be based on the market value and performance of the executive role; dividend/shareholding income should not be mixed with salary.

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Yes; but decision rights and reporting lines must not be left unclear.

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

How is a performance scorecard built?

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

When should the second generation be given authority?

How should a family member's salary be set?

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Sources and further reading

Related content

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

How is a performance scorecard built?

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

When should the second generation be given authority?

How should a family member's salary be set?

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Sources and further reading

Related content

Can a Good Child Be a Bad Manager?

Three separate identities: child, shareholder, manager

The founder's hardest job is not to repeat their own success

A surname can open the door, but it cannot earn trust

How should an entry protocol for family members be designed?

Example case: why a successful engineer does not have to be sales director

How is a performance scorecard built?

The real cause of conflict between the new generation and the founder

Succession preparation that can be applied in the first 90 days

Five questions the owner should ask themselves

Conclusion: the greatest respect for a surname is handing over a role that has been earned

Frequently asked questions

Do children in family businesses have to become managers?

When should the second generation be given authority?

How should a family member's salary be set?

Can a professional manager and a family member lead at the same time?

Sources and further reading

Related content