We well know that family businesses are a strong pillar in the economy of nations, we also know that they employ more than 80% of people around the world and that without them the world as we know it would not exist.
We also know that more than 70% of them do not survive a second generation and the percentage increases when speaking of a third generation.
However, there are many reasons why the survival of family businesses is very low and one of them is the fears that the founders have when talking about generational replacement.
If we wanted to enter the mind of the founder of a company, we will be able to understand each of the fears that they have and that are most natural in every human being. Depending on the company, it is possible for a founder with many years, to dedicate more time to the company than to his own life and not to mention his family, health, religious beliefs, recreation and other activities necessary for the development of a being. human.
With all this at stake, it is normal for the founder of the company to have deep-seated fears when he lets go of command and lets the new generations come to take over the company, because they feel that they are taking the reins of their own lives.
Whether they express it or not, here I list some of the common phrases of the founders and the possible solutions they can find. First, the most repeated phrase is:
… the company is everything to me
It is ironic but at the same time understandable that the founders feel better at the company than at home, because that is where they spend most of their time and it is what they have learned to manage in the best way. Fears arise about what they may lose if they leave the company such as prestige, power, loss of friends or even the authority figure in their family. With this what they may want to express is that they do not know what to do if they retire. What am I going to spend my time on? What activities fill me more than working in the company? With whom am I going to share what I have? How will I guarantee my livelihood?
The irony of this is that all these questions and many more that may arise, already have their answer, and that answer was given at the time we decided to start a business or start a company. I do not know an entrepreneur that when creating a company his intention was to work eternally for her without rest, on the contrary, all entrepreneurs who start a company do so to increase family wealth and improve living standards. In other words, we work to live, we do not live to work. We all have dreams of knowing the world, resting, having fun, enjoying the goods we acquire and more. This is the answer to all those questions, what we have to do is remember that we dreamed of doing when we couldn't do it now that we have the time and resources. Likewise,promoting activities for the good of the community helps to refocus the energies instead of continuing to invest them in the company.
Now, if the founder continues to think that the company is everything to him, surely his next sentence will be:
… Nobody can run the company like me
There is a temptation to think that there is no human being who can get to know and run the company as we do because we have a lifetime with it.This fear stems from the natural pride that every person has and the need that exists to demonstrate their abilities until the last moment. When you have this way of thinking, it is common for a founder to want to hire those people just like them to make sure, as much as possible, that they will do the tasks and activities as they do them. With this, what they want to do is delegate functions to middle managers, but what we are really doing is hiring clones that do things the same way they have been doing them for all the years that the company has. Under this approach, it is impossible for a successor to take charge of the business and lead it to improve its performance because it will be doing things the same way they have been done for years.It is necessary to stop along the way and seek expert opinions on the weaknesses and strengths that the company has, knowing that all the good things that the company has is thanks to its founder and all the bad things too. It is necessary to separate the meaning of delegating with losing control, property is not lost until one dies or decides to part with it, but management does need to be delegated because the years do not forgive and people do not get younger with the passing weather. It is mandatory for a company to adequately delegate and define the control mechanisms that it will use to govern the company from the Board of Directors. It is sad to think that if a founder maintains that position in the end he will end up being right, because, when he has to leave this world,There will be no person who can run the company like the founder does because the company will die with him.
However, to solve this problem, a change of thought on the part of the founder is necessary, which there is no other way to do it than realizing what you will lose if you maintain this position.. It is necessary to think of a greater good than satisfying our pride, it is a sacrifice through which more benefits than losses are obtained and if we analyze it well, everyone who has children is already used to doing this. All parents sacrifice many things and leave everything that is necessary in the background so that our children can get ahead and be good men and women and that they can make their mark on the world. If we look at it well, it is not as difficult as it seems, it is simply thinking about the well-being of the company and not ours, it is leaving that selfishness aside to ensure that the company manages to transcend from generation to generation and can create a family legacy.
But, assuming that the founder maintains his position, and adding the previous two sentences, we have that the founder without the company does not live and no one will ever be able to manage it better than him, we have as a result that:
… I don't have a successor
We should not be surprised by this thought because it is a natural result, the surprise would be that we had a suitable successor as a result of an incorrect performance. It is clear that there is no way to have a successor in the company if we have never trained our children to be successors of the heritage that we have built. Worse still is thinking that we can leave our assets to someone who is not familiar if we have managed the company incorrectly and what we have are clones and not managers.
In order to have a successor, you must first train him, take him by the hand while he knows the company, delegate functions and responsibilities knowing that he will have full autonomy to execute them and demand the relevant results. The most important thing about succession is knowing the moment to retire to live life beyond the company and control through the Board of Directors the heritage that has cost so much to build, maintaining harmony in the family and profitability in the company.
