What happens when the family’s succession plans for their business don’t align with the vision of their next generation? What if cultural or societal expectations clash with modern realities? These are not abstract questions. Families across industries and cultures have faced them for generations, often with dramatically different outcomes.

In these moments, succession planning becomes more than just a financial or operational exercise. It becomes a test of family unity and communication. Should the business stay whole? Should it be shared amongst the heirs? Or is it wiser to divide responsibilities, ownership, or even sell the entire business?

Take the Mondavi family of California, of winemaking fame. In the 1940s, the family had two heirs. One was a shrewd businessman, the other more artistic. Both believed they were destined to guide the business. Their disagreements escalated, and a dispute over a perceived slight toward one spouse spiralled into deep acrimony. Eventually, the rift fractured not only the company’s leadership but also the family itself. Their story is a classic example of how unresolved conflicts can destroy both business value and personal relationships.

But conflict is not inevitable. Other families have found ways to protect the business – and the family bond. In some cultures, like an East Asian family I worked with, their belief was that survival depends on keeping the family business together, in order to keep family unity, no matter the cost. That conviction can help preserve continuity. However, without clear rules it may also create long-term tension.

Some families take a more structured approach. Consider the Beretta family of Italy, makers of firearms since the 1500s. Their succession plan has been remarkably stable for centuries. In each generation, the family votes to appoint a single leader, ensuring unity and clarity of direction. The process may not satisfy every individual ambition, but it has kept the business strong and the family intact.

Other families have introduced governance mechanisms that reduce friction. The Hoffmann-La Roche family of Switzerland, pooled their company shares into a blind trust overseen by an independent trustee. This way, decisions reflect the collective interest of the family rather than personal rivalries. When one family member wanted to exit, she was able to sell her shares – worth around $1 billion – mostly back to the trust and the remainder to the market. She no longer participated in the upside or any shared appreciation. But the family avoided bitterness and infighting.

Then there’s the Marzotto family, global leaders in high-quality wool and textiles. Their plan is pragmatic: every few generations, one branch of the family buys out another. This reduces complexity and prevents disputes from festering across an ever-expanding shareholder base. By consolidating ownership, they simplify governance, whilst ensuring continuity.

These examples highlight a critical truth: there is no single “right” strategy for succession. The key is to adopt a structure that works for your family —whether it’s appointing a sole leader, professionalising governance, creating buyout mechanisms, or using trustees—that protects both the family’s harmony and the company’s future. This should start with a discussion of “business first or family first”

If your family business or family office is facing these challenges, it’s important to address them before conflict erupts. I’ve worked with multiple generations to navigate the delicate balance between family unity and business continuity, and I can help your family find the succession strategy that works best for you.