Bachelor Thesis Dubinsky - Hochschule-Luzern · 2016. 9. 29. · This Bachelor Thesis is submitted as part of the requirements for the BSc in Business Administration at the School

BachelorThesis

WhathappensintheFamily,staysintheFamily:

TheChallengeofConsultingFamilyBusinesses.

AmberDubinsky

UniversityofAppliedSciencesandArts-Lucerne

BachelorofScienceinBusinessAdministration

InternationalManagement&Economics

6thSemester

July2011

1

BACHELOR THESIS

What happens in the Family, stays in the Family:

The Challenge of Consulting Family Businesses.

Author:

Amber Dubinsky [email protected]

Geibelstrasse 37, 8037 Zürich

Client & Supervisor:

Claudia Binz [email protected]

Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Institute of Management and Regional Economics

Zentralstrasse 9, 6002 Luzern

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration International Management + Economics

This Bachelor Thesis is submitted as part of the requirements for the BSc in Business

Administration at the School of Business, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and

Arts.

July 2011

2

3

Management Summary

Family enterprises, irrespective of their scale of operation, size, legal form, or specific

industrial activity, and market development have been the backbone of corporate life, across

nations, as well as the cornerstone of socio-economic development (Poutziouris, Smyrnios, &

Klein, 2006, p. 1).

It seems all the more surprising that two thirds of all family businesses do not survive

the second generation, and only 10-15% manage to reach the third (Aronoff, 2010, p. 4). The

reasons explaining these facts are manifold. Succession, emotional commitment, or conflicts

of interest amongst family members are just a few causes (p. 11). Reluctance towards

consulting is common. Nevertheless, after years of development, family business consultants

have emerged as multidimensional and holistic advisors serving the needs of families in

business. These technically trained advisors have expanded their professional boundaries to

encompass a broad range of skills that are required, and aspects to be considered, to address

the complex issues associated with family businesses (Goodman, 1998, p. 351; 349).

It is the goal of this thesis to identify what it takes, what aspects need to be

considered, and what skills are required in order to adapt consultation to the major

specificities of family businesses.

This dissertation followed a series of literature reviews to focus itself to a theoretical

framework that served as the roadmap. The research question was analysed by combining

theory, models and concepts on family businesses with the results of qualitative interviews.

Leaders of successful middle-sized family businesses and experienced consultants were

asked about their views and opinions on the special characteristics of family business

consulting and its advancements.

The main differences between family businesses and non-family businesses are well

explained by the Three-Circle Model developed by Tagiuri and Davis (1982). The interaction

of the three circles, i.e. subsystems – family, business, and ownership – reveals a major

complexity that family businesses face. Companies owned and managed by families are a

special form of organizations with negative and positive consequences. For family members

and in particularly the pioneer, the business that was created over many years with passion

and endurance, expresses their identity. It represents a lifework and the financial source that

4

will sustain the family and provide career opportunities for the next generation. This

protective attachment and commitment to the business oftentimes makes family members

reluctant, sceptical and distrustful towards external consultants.

In a world where both human needs and business are changing at a fast pace, many

family businesses fail to adapt to an appropriate business model to approach this ever more

complex environment. Fortunately, others do. They have realized the importance of having a

stimulating force that helps them recognize change and effectively adopt to it. However,

family businesses presuppose a strict set of criteria before embarking on an advisor.

The two main requirements towards a consultant are many years of working experience

in the field, and a great amount of empathy and family business understanding. Furthermore,

as a consultant establishing a personal relationship with the client, trust is the binding

foundation that gives promise to the longevity of the relationship.

When advising a complex organization, such as a family business, the following advice is

essential to apply; each and every family business is unique in itself and needs to be

consulted accordingly. Advisors must discern family firms in a sensitive and unique way in

order to provide added value.

The thesis concludes with a recommended consultation approach for advisors, partially

based on the systemic theory with amending views of further professionals in the field, and

primarily embedding the interview outcomes. The approach accounts for the main problem

that many family businesses are faced with. Common family business issues are not limited

to one specific area, but usually have an overlapping effect towards into other fields of the

business and above all entail complex emotional components that for the most part remain

invisible without probing sensitively into the inner workings of the business.

The systemic approach makes room for delving deeper into the interpersonal

relationships and therefore, considers both the emotional aspect and the broad environment

the family and business is in. Solutions are not standardised, but are specifically created and

adjusted to be applied to the businesses situation and needs. For a consultant effectively

applying his skills to a family business, the uniqueness of every human, of every family

relationship, and of every individual business must be of greatest and most essential

importance.

5

Table of Contents Management Summary ........................................................................................... 3

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Initial Situation .................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Problem Definition .............................................................................................. 12 1.3 Objectives and Research Question .................................................................... 13 1.4 Limitation of the Study ....................................................................................... 14 1.5 Document Structure ............................................................................................ 15

2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Empirical Design ................................................................................................. 16

2.1.1 Research Approach and Methodology ........................................................... 16 2.1.2 Objectivity and Transparency ......................................................................... 17 2.1.3 Validity ........................................................................................................... 18 2.1.4 Reliability ....................................................................................................... 18 2.1.5 Strengths of the Empirical Design .................................................................. 18 2.1.6 Generalisation and Limitations of the Empirical Design ............................... 19

2.2 Strategic Sample .................................................................................................. 20 2.2.1 The Two Sample Subgroups ........................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Limitations in the Strategic Sample ................................................................ 21 2.2.3 Accessing Interview Partners ......................................................................... 21 2.2.4 Pre-Test ........................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Interview Outline ................................................................................................. 23 2.4 Interview Analysis Scheme ................................................................................. 25

2.4.1 Categories for Themes .................................................................................... 25 2.4.2 Results of the Pre-Test and Changes in the Method ....................................... 26

3 Definitions and Theoretical Background ...................................................... 27 3.1 Definition .............................................................................................................. 27

3.1.1 Family Business .............................................................................................. 27 3.2 Theoretical Background ..................................................................................... 29

3.2.1 Characteristics of Family Businesses ............................................................. 30 3.2.2 “Familiness” ................................................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Three Generic Paradoxes of Family Businesses ............................................. 33 3.2.4 The Three Circle Model ................................................................................. 35 3.2.5 The Three-Dimensional Developmental Model ............................................. 40

4 Results .............................................................................................................. 46 4.1 Observations – Incentives to work with Family Businesses .......................... 46 4.2 Observations – Hesitation and Inhibition to Seek Consulting ........................ 47 4.3 Observations – Criteria for choosing a consultant ........................................... 49 4.4 Observations – Typical Consultant Fields ........................................................ 51 4.5 Observations – Challenges specific to Family Businesses ................................ 54

6

4.6 Observations – Requirements for the Consultants .......................................... 59

5 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 62 5.1 Differences between family businesses and non-family businesses in the

context of Consulting ........................................................................................... 62 5.2 Difficulties and Challenges Consulting Family Businesses .............................. 64 5.3 Typical Consulting Fields ................................................................................... 68 5.4 Inhibitions and Doubts for bringing in a Consultant ....................................... 71 5.5 The Family Business Consultant ........................................................................ 72 5.6 A Suggested Approach ........................................................................................ 74 5.7 Transition to Professionalism ............................................................................. 77

6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 79

7 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 82

8 References ........................................................................................................ 83 Appendix A 1: Interview Outline_Consultant……………………………………...88 Appendix A 2: Interview Outline_Family Business………………………………..90 Appendix B: Interview Analysis…………………………………………………….92 Appendix C: Declaration of Sole Authorship……………………………………..100

7

List of Interviews Conducted

Sequence Interviewee Date and Location

1 Consultant 1 20.03.2011

Office, Pfäffikon SZ


Office, Luzern


Office, Zurich

4 Family Business – CEO 1 18.04.2011

Office, St. Gallen


Office, Zug


Office, Zurich

Table 1: Interviews Conducted in the Course of this Research

8

List of Figures

Number Page

Figure 1: Family Business Definition by Degree of Family Involvement……….28

Figure 2: Three Generic Paradoxes of Family Businesses (a-c)………...…….33-34

Figure 3: The Three Circle Model………………………………………………...35

Figure: 4: The 3-Dimensional Developmental Model……………………….....…41

Figure 5: Comparison of a family business system and a non-family system model, revealing the increased complexity……………………………..64

9

List of Tables

Number Page

Table 1: Interviews Conducted in the Course of this Research………………….7

Table 2: Interview Partners, Workplace & Reasons for Choosing them……22-23

Table 3: Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm………………………………..66

10

1 Introduction

Family businesses are the oldest corporate form we know - in fact an institution as old

as civilization (Aronoff, 1998, p. 181). They long have served as the backbone of ancient

economies and played a significant role in the development of western civilization (Bird,

Welsch, Astrachan, and Pistrui, 2002, p. 337). Still today, family businesses build the

foundation of our economy, create the most jobs, and generate a large proportion of total

turnover (Braun, 2009, p. 11). Of all Swiss companies, family businesses make up around

88%, the majority being small and medium enterprises (SME) with their share of the Swiss

Gross Domestic Product estimated to be 60%. These facts clearly reflect the importance of

family businesses (May, & Fueglistaller, 2010, p. 16).

However, only a couple of years ago family businesses were considered an outdated

model, antiquated and an organization with set patriarchal structures (von Schlippe, Nischak,

& El Hachimi, 2008, p. 11). The focal points encompassed publicly owned businesses and

their boundless aspiration towards above average yields and record growth rates (Braun,

2009, p. 9). Malik (in Braun, 2009) states that the shareholder-value-perspective has made us

incapable of recognizing the true corporate champions – the entrepreneurial managed family

businesses (p. 7).

Recently, the image of family businesses has changed. Especially in the difficult times

we are currently facing, it is not surprising that people return to known and established values

− such as the family (Fopp, Giger, Herger, Tiberini, Schwartzkopff, & Zenhäusern, 2010, p.

17). Hubler (2009) states that in a family business where a common vision is shared, respect,

honesty and fairness are upheld, and a loyal and unified environment is encouraged. At the

heart of the vision is the commitment to quality, generosity, and an appreciation of one

another’s gifts (p.255).

Strong family businesses are aware of this and follow the credo “We think in

generations, not in quarters” (von Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 12). This translation of traditional

family values into business practices has paid off. One finds that independent of size, family

businesses are often among the best companies within their sector (Wimmer, Domayer,

Oswald, & Vater, 2005, p. V). Moreover, analysis of the stock exchange index for family

11

businesses has shown them to be more successful than publicly owned businesses (von

Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 11).

Opinions about the definition of a family business vary and have changed over time but

the concept of bonded values remains constant. In families the most important and basic

principles are orientation, the feeling of security, respect, loyalty, reliability, and certainly the

rootedness with tradition. Increasingly, family is perceived as an excellent school of thought -

dealing with individualism and complexity, the process of evolution, finding the equilibrium

between persistence and development, focusing on human values, and establishing relations

based on trust (Fopp et al., 2010, p.17). Family businesses constitute a section of our society

where trusting relationships obtain priority — a value, which potentially contravenes and

conflicts with today’s business system. Nonetheless, it is the above characteristics that show

the core of the family business’ uniqueness, that determine success or failure (May, &

Fueglistaller, 2010, p. 17).

Nowadays, businesses are facing various challenges in our dynamic and fast growing

economy. One of the main reasons for failure results from globalization, the integration of

international markets for goods, services, and capital that is pressuring societies to alter their

traditional practices (Rodik, 1997, p. 1). Economically speaking the world has grown

together into one unit (Wimmer et al., 2005, p. 27).

In order to survive the fierce competition and growing expectations of customers,

family businesses increasingly require external consulting. However, before 1970 it was

difficult to find professional business consultants who could deal with the unique issues and

problems which typical family-owned businesses face. Accountants, attorneys, and others

had not yet begun to distinguish between family-owned businesses and other business

enterprises (Wimmer et al., p. 349).

According to Aronoff and Ward (2010) the success and survival of family businesses

may depend on the appointed professionals’s ability to advise on matters of finance, law,

taxes, family relations, business strategy, succession and other relevant issues (p. VI). These

consultants are expected to have experience and skills in order to address the multiple and

complex issues associated with family business ownership, successorship, and continuity of

the business enterprise (Goodman, 1998, p. 349).

12

1.1 Initial Situation Over the last 10 years business advisors have been challenged to educate themselves

beyond the traditional parameters of their profession to provide competent and holistic

guidance to their family business clientele (Goodman, 1998, p. 350). Lee and Rogoff (1996)

state that the fundamental issue surrounding family involvement in business is the

implication of the overlapping and potentially conflicting family and business roles managed

by those who are in business together (p. 424).

Baumhauer (in von Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 11) identifies that one of the most striking

characteristics of family businesses is the paradox of the relationship structure, standing

within three dimensions - family, ownership, and business. The essence of the so-called

“Three Circle Model” (see also Tagiuri & Davis, 1982, see chapter 3.2.3) is that the family

firm can be modelled as comprising three overlapping, interacting, and interdependent

subsystems. As an open systems model, each subsystem maintains boundaries that separate it

from the other subsystems and the general external environment within which the family firm

operates (Moores, 2009, p. 169). Managers see themselves in a complex environment of

market conditions, personnel, leadership, technology, law and financing systems. However,

for family businesses the complexity of this environment grows exponentially, as not only

does the business need to be taken into consideration for all decisions, but also the family

system. Thereby, this constellation brings many new phenomena and paradoxes into being

that can have various causes (von Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 229). Paralysing conflicts,

nepotism or preservation of the existing structure at all costs, are examples of the tension

between the circles and show negative consequences of an unprofessionally managed

interaction between business and family (May, & Fueglistaller, 2010, p. 17).

1.2 Problem Definition Family businesses need guidance and assistance to decide what course of action would

best serve their needs going forward in today’s fast growing world. Questions arise like,

should they change their business model, should they continue with what they are doing, or

should they sell the business — each choice bringing a significantly different set of

consequences with it (Vago, 2004, p. 71).

13

Yet many business owners do not actively seek the advice they need and instead

hesitate to access consulting services and relinquish potential business improvements out of

modesty, loyalty, or a sense of comfort with advisors who do not challenge them (Aronoff, &

Ward, 2010, p. 1). Few business owners use professional advisors wisely and nearly one third

of family businesses have no trusted consultant outside the family (p. 9).

According to Vago (2004) many family businesses shy away from change, because

they know what academic theory depicts, that is, change and confrontation go hand in hand.

They seem to be aware that there is no change without conflict, as transitions are the source

of most conflicts, and furthermore change is expensive (p. 72). Aronoff and Ward (2010)

offer a set of identified attitudes that reason why many family businesses avoid attaining

advice (pp. 9-14). Summarized, the main concerns are about pride, self-reliance, the

perception of advisors being a last resort out of desperation, incomprehensibility or lack of

interest on the part of consultants, costs, and time constraints.

However, considering the facts that 65% of all family businesses successions fail in the

second generation, only 10-15% reach the third generation and merely 3-5% the fourth

(Aronoff, 2010, p. 4), the conclusion can be drawn that consulting for many businesses is

crucial and may take a pivotal role in their success or failure.

The good news is that numerous professional advisors are building expertise in the

unique strengths and needs of family businesses (Aronoff, & Ward, 2010, p. VII) in order to

accordingly recognize and embed the importance of Vago’s (2004) statement: “One thing

that differentiates family enterprises from others is that no matter how stakeholders resolve

conflict — be it about current issues or future directions — it will significantly impact their

lives, their businesses, their families, and their relationships in and outside the business” (p.

73).

1.3 Objectives and Research Question The topic of consulting family businesses will be touched upon from two perspectives:

the perspective of the family businesses making use of consulting, and that of the consultants

providing business consulting services to family businesses.

14

The literature research in chapter 3 encompasses a thorough elaboration of Tagiuri and

Davis’ (1982) “Three Circle Model”, as it is a useful tool to understand the source of

interpersonal conflicts, role dilemmas, priorities, and boundaries in family firms. In recent

work, Gersick et al. found it useful to transform the three-circle concept into a developmental

model by incorporating the dimension of time (Gersick, Lansberg, Desjardins, & Dunn,

1999, p. 287). Furthermore, the literature research consists of finding scientific sources to

soundly define the term “Family Business” for this thesis.

The empirical study (see chapter 4) consists of qualitative interviews representing both

perspectives. Family businesses already having made use of consulting on the one hand and

on the other hand, consultants that have experience working together with family businesses.

This reveals to what extent the consulting services vary between family businesses and

publicly owned businesses. The study aims to discover the consulting needs and expectations

of family businesses; in which fields advice and guidance is required, in which consulting is

not demanded, and for what reasons. Furthermore, in terms of implementation, any

significant differences in the consulting practices are identified and possible reasons explored.

The overall research goal is to find a way to close the gap between publicly owned

businesses and family owned businesses with regards to consulting. The differences in

characteristics between these two kinds of businesses require a differentiated and adjusted

consulting approach. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to gather sufficient information

through desk and literature research and qualitative analysis to enable the formulation of an

answer to the following research question:

In the context of consulting, what aspects should be considered by external

business consultants to adequately adapt to the differences between family owned and

publicly owned businesses?

Two additional questions have to be elaborated on in order to give an answer to the

research question:

- Which business areas most often need consulting? - Do consultants currently approach family businesses in a consciously differentiated

way?

1.4 Limitation of the Study This thesis will be limited to two groups of people. One group comprises of three

professionals who provide consultation services to both non-family and family businesses.

15

The other groups are Swiss multi generational family businesses, employing between 50 and

500 people, that have in the past or still do actively engage consultants for advice. The

consultation was not limited to any specific type of issue.

1.5 Document Structure After the introduction of the subject matter, the objectives and the research question,

the thesis continues with the methodological procedure in chapter 2. This part confers the

applied procedure for realizing the study. The validity and reliability - the extent to which the

results agree with those of other researchers and the extent to which the results are applicable

in other fields - are discussed. The chapter also evaluates the criteria for selecting the

strategic sample. Furthermore, it elucidates the development of the interview outline and the

outcome of the pre-test. Chapter 3 presents the theoretical background, which includes the

definition and concept of key words, and the core theory on family businesses. The following

chapter 4 reveals the results of the empirical research based on the interviews. Chapter 5 is

the discussion section where all gathered insights are summarized and reasoned opinions

about the results are given. In chapter 6, the conclusion, where the results are combined with

the concepts and theory that were covered and the answers to the research questions are

addressed and answered. In addition, recommendations are given for the further improvement

of family business consultation.

16

2 Methodology

2.1 Empirical Design

2.1.1 Research Approach and Methodology

The objectives of this bachelor thesis can be achieved best by the combining of both

deductive and inductive thinking. Deductive reasoning works from a general theory to more

specific observations, seen as a top-down approach. Generally, it enables a confirmation or

falsification of a hypothesis based on observations. The opposite applies for the inductive

reasoning with the aim of moving from specific observations to a broader generalization or

theory. To meet the objectives of the research, these two approaches were used in a parallel

approach, cycling from a theory to observations and back up again to a theory (Trochim,

2006, Deduction & Induction section, para. 3). Through studying and bundling the

experiences, expectations and requirements of successful family businesses and experts in the

consulting field, this study attempts to come up with new recommendations that contribute to

an optimised consulting approach for family businesses.

Theories covering the challenges and differences between publicly owned and family

owned businesses exist, but little research has been done on extracting specific aspects

necessary to consider in the context of family business consulting. Therefore, once the main

theory, the “Three Circle Model” had been analysed sufficiently and properly embedded, a

qualitative analysis was conducted to gather observations from both perspectives, the

consultants and family businesses, which have un- or successfully gained experiences

working together.

Theories are there to provide the theoretical fundament and should fulfil two main

functions; those are to explain facts and circumstances within the object range and to allow

predictions (Klaus, & Buhr 1972, p. 1083 in Dahinden, Sturzenegger, & Neuroni, 2006, 68).

The existing concept of “Familiness” and the “Three Circle Model” constituted the

theoretical framework for the dissertation. Generally known findings served as hypotheses

about family business related consulting. Following the top-down methodology of deduction,

the theoretical hypothesis was tested by conducting in-depth interviews with experienced

family business consultants and successful family business leaders. With the approach of

17

combining deductive and inductive thinking, this dissertation describes a family business

adjusted form of consulting. The result of the research approach allowed the confirmation or

rejection of the hypotheses. Moreover, the result contributed to the development of guiding

principles for family business consultants who have realized the necessity of adapting to the

special characteristics of family businesses. This is precisely the intention and purpose of the

research. Thus, an explorative approach was best suited to answering the research question

and encompassing the greater complexity of family business constructs.

The qualitative approach allowed the systematic setting up of a choice of interview

partners and the generation of interesting questions that aimed for discussion and interaction

with the specific interviewees (Trochim, 2006, Qualitative Methods section, para. 1). In order

to learn about both sides involved in the context of consulting, interviews with the providers

and the recipients were conducted. These choices are further argued in the chapter on the

strategic sample. During face-to-face interviews, the author aimed to gather in-depth

information and different perceptions of how family firm consulting could be improved.

2.1.2 Objectivity and Transparency

Objectivity is understood as intersubjectivity, meaning that each statement and the way

it has evolved must be comprehensible to a third person (Pürer, 2003, p. 551). The reader

must be able to follow the process by which the data was collected and analysed (Rubin, &

Rubin, 2005, p. 76). Fulfilling this requirement demands a clear representation of the topic,

the methodology and the accrued results thereof (Dahinen, Sturzenegger, & Neurone, 2006, p.

140).

The study examined two relevant perspectives with the objective of learning how to

adequately adapt consulting to the specifics of family businesses. However, by using the

qualitative inquiry as the single method, the work disclosed to a major extent the subjective

view of the interviewees. This restricted the objectivity of the assumptions generated through

the research (Marshall, & Rossman, 2006, p. 102).

In terms of transparency, the attempt was to gain an honest, personal and open picture

of the interviewees. It is important to note that the physical space in which an interview is

situated can have a strong influence on how it proceeds. Comfort, privacy and quiet are the

three aspects of the physical environment that can be seen as the most crucial (King, &

Horrocks, 2010, p. 42). By visiting the interviewees in the well-known surroundings of their

18

own offices, these conditions could be met. To ensure the transparency of the data, and that

personal interpretation of the said was mitigated, notes and recordings were made. Relevant

answers and statements were then, analogously and grammatically corrected, transcribed.

These can be found in the appendices.

2.1.3 Validity

Validity is understood as the entitlement of a research technique to in effect measure

what should be measured (Dahinden, et al., 2006, 140). The gap between existing consulting

practices and family business adjusted practices was identified by interviewing a specific

sample of professional advisors and family business owners. With their relevant first-hand

experience and knowledge, they made the results convincing (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 65).

Based on the qualitative approach, the interviewees helped to validate theories behind the

research topic on an individual level. By studying the perspectives of both the consultants

and the business owners, the author contributed to a generalisation of the findings.

2.1.4 Reliability

In research, reliability means that results are repeatable on different subjects, provided

the same usage of methods, equipment and experiments is made (Greetham, 2009, p. 132). A

measure is considered as reliable if the same results would be achieved over time. In other

words, if the same people would be repeatedly asked the identical questions, the answers

would not deviate. Nevertheless, as with any source, judgements have to be made about the

reliability. With the rather open approach of qualitative research, the course of the interview

might have taken a somewhat different direction, when conducting the interview again and

again. The interviewed answers would probably have varied slightly each time. Yet, the

overall outcome would have been consistent as the answers were based on the opinions and

experiences of the interview partners, allowing reliability to be assured.

2.1.5 Strengths of the Empirical Design

Qualitative research is based on data that cannot be converted into numerical form.

Expressed in words describing attitudes, feelings, opinions, ideas, customs and beliefs, it

cannot be reduced to averages, maximum and minimum values, or percentages. This sort of

material can, however, be rich in subtle insights into human behaviour that are essential to

understanding individuals, societies and cultures (Greetham, 2009, p. 180). The qualitative

19

approach with a balanced and suitable strategic sample influenced the research outcome in

terms of validity, reliability, and objectivity. The quality of answering the research question,

ultimately rested in the choice of the experts. For enhanced credibility of the research,

interviewees were chosen who are knowledgeable, whose combined views presented a

balanced perspective, and who helped testing the emerging guiding principles (Rubin, &

Rubin, 2005, p. 63). The semi-structured interview type, giving the interviewer a schedule of

questions, some tightly phrased to elicit clear, simple responses and others open so that some

issues can be explored more freely, gave the interviewer the possibility to have unanticipated

responses that lead the discussion into new areas (Greetham, 2009, p. 214). Touching new

areas was moreover to be achieved by not sending the interview outline to the interviewees

beforehand even though this would have allowed for better preparation. The author aimed to

receive personal and intuitive answers, as many areas touched upon individual experiences,

opinions and views. The intention of the study was to compare the answers from the

consultants and the family businesses leaders. Therefore, wherever it made sense, both

subsamples were asked the same questions. Overall, this methodology allowed for personal

opinions and impressions, and enabled human interaction.

2.1.6 Generalisation and Limitations of the Empirical Design

Asking questions and getting replies is a more challenging task than it may initially

suggest. The spoken or written word always has a residue of ambiguity, no matter how

carefully the answers are reported or coded. Yet, interviewing is one of the most common

and powerful methods that tries to understand fellow human beings (Denzin, & Lincoln,

2005, p. 645). Qualitative interviews are time and resource intensive and thus the research for

the dissertation at hand was based on six interviews, three of each subsample. People were

interviewed who were intensely involved in the field of consulting and familiar with the

uniqueness of family businesses, with a few even coming from a family business background.

These aspects helped to validate the results. However, generalisation of the findings on how

to consult family businesses best would be inappropriate, since a limited amount of data was

collected and analysed.

20

2.2 Strategic Sample Strategic sampling, in order to choose the interview partners, presents two main

challenges. The sample has to be small enough to be managed effectively in terms of time

and cost, and large enough to generalize. The sample must be representative of the whole

population and therefore possess the same qualities as all the results, thus the conclusion,

recommendations and generalizations, will be affected (Greetham, 2009, p. 195). The aim of

the study was to interview people who were directly linked to consulting, either from the

consultant’s or the recipient’s perspective.

2.2.1 The Two Sample Subgroups

The criterion generally proposed for sampling in qualitative research is diversity.

Researchers should strive to recruit interviewees who represent a variety of positions in

relation to the research topic, of a kind that might be expected to throw light on meaningful

differences in experience (King, & Horricks, 2010, p. 29). In order to answer the research

question, it was essential to take the two most affected perspectives into consideration, which

are all active in different industries, and to understand and learn the relevant aspects of

consulting from them. They are the following:

• Family Businesses

One main requirement was to get to know family businesses better and learn about

their way of conducting business. The goal was moreover to find out about their expectations

towards family business advisors, and how the family firms expect consultants to cater to

their complexity. The two prerequisites were that the family business had already passed at

least once to the successive generation and also, had worked with an advisor, regardless in

what field. The industry the business was active in was not taken into account for the

assessment, due to diversity reasons. Furthermore, having active family members within the

company, apart from the owner, was not a necessity. The author was privileged to have been

able to conduct the interviews in all cases with the head of the firm. All three family

businesses were SMEs with more than xxx employees.

21

• Business Consultants

It was elemental to understand how business consultants perceived the collaboration

with family businesses and where they identified significant differences between them and

non-family businesses. The criterion in order to interview them was foremost extensive

experience with family businesses. Certainly, someone who is an expert in consulting family

businesses, was of particular high value. However, consultants who had advised both family

and non-family businesses were included in the study, as they were able, based on their

experience, to reveal the dissimilarities between them. .

The goal in interviewing the consultants was to understand the differences between

family and publicly owned businesses: in what fields they were asked for advice most often;

what the incentives to work with family businesses were; whether they had already

effectively adapted their advice to family firms, and if so, in which specific ways.

2.2.2 Limitations in the Strategic Sample

Experience and expertise were the main criteria for choosing the interviewees within

the sample. The question of gender, age, location, and cultural background was considered,

but due to the limited number of interviews, those factors could not individually be taken into

account.

All of the three chosen family businesses interviewed belong to the category of

multiple generation firms, defined as having executed a certain influence on the business

development for over three generations. In this business type, the realized continuity in terms

of ownership and managing structures represents the central vision for most of family

businesses, which is seen as an unlikely case in the eyes of the authors Wimmer, Groth and

Simon (2004, p. 1). Therefore, is can be assumed that the three family businesses have

already overcome the most difficult and complex phase in the business cycle and hence,

could not elaborate in too much detail on the typical and in literature much discussed

difficulties and challenges of family businesses.

2.2.3 Accessing Interview Partners

In the course of this research, the client suggested several interview partners to be

included in the sample. The client’s large network enabled the author to conduct interviews

with excellent consultants specialized in family businesses. Also attendance at a forum on

22

family businesses, organized by the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Lucerne -

Economics, provided direct contact with members of large and successful family businesses.

Two family owners were recommended and contacted through one of the consultants. This

consultant had previously worked with them and was rightfully convinced of the value they

would add to the research.

Table 1: Interview Partners, their Workplace and the Reasons for Choosing them

Sequence Interviewee Workplace Relevant to Sample 1 Consultant 1 Consultant 1 has his own consulting

firm with the core competence in strategic- and organization development.

This person has over 20 years of experience in consulting and his clients include a number of family businesses.

2 Consultant 2 Consultant 2 is a partner of one of the global leading companies in auditing, taxation, transactions and consulting and the partner in charge of the German-speaking part of Switzerland.

He has grown up in a family business himself, therefore, brings significant experience and insights from his background and has profound expertise in the context of succession planning for family businesses.

3 Consultant 3 Consultant 3 has his own consulting firm specialized in family businesses, has been contract lecturer at Universität St. Gallen (HSG), and is president of a Swiss network for Family Businesses.

Consultant 3 is an expert in the field of family businesses and has gained over 25 years of experience. Moreover, he has written books on management in family businesses and the succession matter. As president of a family business network, he co-provides a valuable platform for family firms.

4 Family Business Leader 1

Family Business leader 1 is the managing director of a family company with headquarters in St. Gallen and is in its 3rd generation. It was founded in 1883 and has been managed and owned by the family since 1934.

Leader 1 grew up in a successful family firm and in 1996 took over the role of Chairman. The firm has worked together with many consultants especially in the technical and process and quality certification field.

According to the definition of Shanker and Astrachan (1996) this family firm belongs to the narrow category, thus, having considerable family involvement (see Chapter 3.1).


Family Business leader 2 is the CEO and part-owner of a family firm which is in its 4th generation. It is headquartered in Zug and was founded in 1899.

Leader 2 grew up in a successful family firm and in 1999 took over the role of Chairman. The firm has worked together with many consultants in different fields, such as technical, organizational and firm culture matters.

According to the definition of Shanker and Astrachan (1996) this family firm belongs to the middle category, thus, has some family involvement (see Chapter 3.1).

23


Family Business leader 3 is responsible for the production of his firm which is in its 4th generation with over 700 employees. His brother, father, and sister are also involved.

Leader 3 took over the entire production for their firm four years ago. The business works with partners that sell their products in all of Europe and Asia. The firm sees itself as an investor buying up subsidiaries and investing in product innovations. The firm however, is not involved in the daily business producing the goods. According to the definition of Shanker and Astrachan (1996) this family firm belongs to the middle category, thus, has some family involvement (see Chapter 3.1)

Due to the individual ownership situation in every family, the interview partners of

family businesses are referred to as “leaders” and not owner. In all cases however, the

interviewee was the descendant and managing director of the company.

2.2.4 Pre-Test

The first interview in the defined outline was held with a business consultant. He had

previously worked for large consulting companies and since in collaboration with a partner,

has his own consulting firm, with the focus on business administration issues. His clients

comprise mainly SMEs, of which some are run by families. However, as consultant 1 has

worked with both types of companies, he was able to highlight the differences especially

well.

With this trial the preliminary interview outline was tested in order to be able to

ameliorate the up coming interviews. After the pre-test, the quality of the interview outcome

was analysed and the author reflected on the questions and general approach. This allowed

the author for the amending of the interview outline before holding the successive interviews.

2.3 Interview Outline The purpose of a qualitative research interview can be described as attaining qualitative

descriptions of the life world of the subject with respect to interpretation of their meaning

(Kvale, 1996, p. 124). The author was faced with a trade-off between a high degree of

reliability, thus receiving the same answers over time, and receiving rich and valuable

information. The best way in terms of receiving open answers is to hold an unstructured

interview, whereas the best way to ensure repeatability is a strongly structured interview. For

24

this study, the semi-structured interview method was chosen due to the higher controllability

compared to the unstructured interview and due to the fact that a completely structured

interview would not have been appropriate for answering the research question. There was a

certain focus-theme but also an aim for gathering insights within different perspectives or

contexts. In order to induce the interviewee into the story-telling mode the interview needed a

flexible framework, allowing follow-up questions to arise during the interview as a result of

what the interviewee said.

In a research setting, it is up to the interviewer to create a contact that allows

interactions to get beyond polite conversations or exchanges of ideas in a short time, but also

to conduct interviews with the narrative approach (Kvale, 1996, p. 125.) The process was to

ask broad and complex questions in a way that would lead the interviewee into the story

telling mode (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 48). This allowed the interviewer to gather as much

information as possible and to then analyse it to help find the answers to the research

question. First, the interviewees were informed about the author’s studies at the University of

Applied Sciences and Arts Lucerne, and about the project in hand. Then, the interviewees

were asked to complete the introduction on themselves that the interviewer gave as an

introduction. The first question was very broad and positively phrased, inquiring about the

incentives to work together with, respectively within, family businesses. The aim after having

the interviewee lead into the narrative mode was to channel the story in the direction that

would help answer the research question. The interview was structured in a similar way to a

consulting process. The outline continued with a general question on consulting, such as what

are typical consulting fields and what issues do family businesses experientially prefer not to

tackle with a consultant. Then the aim was to investigate what exactly triggered the decision

to engage a consultant, and at the same time what the inhibitions related to bringing in an

advisor were. Furthermore, interviewees were asked what particular criteria were applied for

choosing the consultant. Subsequently, the questions then were directed to understanding the

collaboration between the consultant and the family business. The interview was brought to a

close with a question on what skills are seen as required on the part of the consultant, in

order to adequately adapt to the specific needs and increased complexity of family

businesses. With this procedure of asking a broad question in the beginning and then

following the structure of an actual consulting process, the interview was successfully guided

into the narrative phase.

25

The overall aim of the interview outline was to gather relevant information to fill in the

analysis scheme, designed for an entire conceptualisation of a family business consulting

approach. The analysis scheme, which will be explained below and can be found in Appendix

B, incorporated all the aspects that were found relevant and which contributed to the research

question.

2.4 Interview Analysis Scheme

2.4.1 Categories for Themes

This chapter provides the scheme with which the six interviews were analysed. The

objective of the analysis plan was to structure the transcripts to finally help with comparing

individual statements about the same topic.

In order to evaluate the answers accurately, they were first allocated to a large number

of small subcategories to finally be further filtered into five main categories: Incentives to

work with Family Businesses, Hesitations and Inhibitions to seek Consultants, Typical

Consulting Fields, Challenges specific to Family Businesses, and Requirements towards

Consultants.

These subgroups represent relevant aspects of the entire family business consulting

approach and again, follow an approximate consulting process.

The category Incentives to work with Family Businesses intends to illustrate the

fascinating aspects of a family business. The complexity they find themselves in is often

dealt with in literature, however, the aim was to find out what attracted consultants to family

businesses and what made them specialize in them. The Hesitations and Inhibition to seek

Consultants category refers to why family businesses are often reluctant to engage

consultants. It also describes the perception that family businesses often have of consultants.

The Typical Consulting Fields category elaborates on the areas that family businesses most

often seek advice in. The category also discloses areas where only internal family members

or under certain circumstances the confidant of the firms may have access to, however, not

the external consultant. The Challenges specific to Family Businesses category elaborates on

the difficulties, issues, and challenges that family businesses face. Many conflicts of interest

can occur within a family working together in the same family owned firm. Consultants need

to be aware of these conflicts of interest in order to incorporate them in their consulting

26

strategies. The category of Requirements towards Consultants talks about what skills and

abilities advisors need to bring with them in order to sufficiently adapt to family businesses

and the expectations on the part of the family owned firms.

2.4.2 Results of the Pre-Test and Changes in the Method

Like fishing, interviewing is an activity requiring careful preparation, much patience,

and considerable practice if the eventual reward is to be a worthwhile catch (Cohen, 1976, p.

82 in Arksey, & Knight, 1999, p. 89). This quote proved to be very truthful and the

researcher concluded that doing the pre-test with consultant 1 was of high value. Collecting

information about the career development of the interviewee and the core activities of the

company is of major importance. This shows that sound preparation has been done

beforehand and indicates interest in the person. Nonetheless, the author with no practical

experience in consulting, especially during the first few interviews, understandably felt

somewhat insecure. This occasionally resulted in a too prompt continuation to the next

question instead of letting the interviewees delve deeper into certain topics. However, this

uncertainty decreased over time as the author became more familiar with the entire subject

matter and with the multiple interviewing experiences - became more comfortable with each

subsequent interview The interviewer learned how to refine the follow-up questions in order

to receive accurate answers to the research question accurately answered. Due to the

inexperience and natural nervousness of the interviewer, one question was asked in closed

way. This error resulted in a moment of silence, whereupon the interviewer was encouraged

to ask the same question again, however, in an open way, allowing the interviewee to answer

more elaborately and in more detail. As some questions touched on similar topics, the

interviewer became aware of the importance of having the precise structure of the outline in

mind, and to be able to clearly differentiate between the minor deviations of the questions. In

order to prevent this situation from occurring again, the questions were slightly restructured

and bundled in a more intelligent way alleviating the risk of further confusion or uncertainty

for both parties.

The pre-test was a valuable insight into the research topic from a consultant’s point of

view. Regarding the interview, the statements of consultant 1 proved to be a rich source of

information and supported further discussions providing conclusions useful for the research.

27

3 Definitions and Theoretical Background

3.1 Definition

3.1.1 Family Business

There is consensus that family businesses make up the dominant corporate form of

todays economic system (Wimmer et al., 2005, p. IX). It is important, however, to note that

economic measurements are linked to their definition (Shanker, & Astrachan, 1996, p. 107).

While anyone can intuitively recognize a “family business,” until today, there is still a lack of

consensus as to what defines a family firm (Shanker, & Astrachan, 1996, p. 107; Handler,

1989, p. 259). One reason is that the field itself is still relatively new and un-researched

(Sharma, 2004, pp. 3-4). Theorists have focused on many different aspects such as ownership,

management of family members, degree of family involvement, or potential for generational

transfer. Each of those dimensions that are typically used to distinguish family firms from

other types of organizations take on a variety of forms, as they may vary relatively to the size

and type of the firm, ranging from small shops to billion dollar family-owned corporations.

Therefore, any definition of family business has to take into account this range of

configurations as well as distinguish family firms from other forms of organizations (Handler,

1989, p. 259).

In order to be somewhat more specific, Shanker and Astrachan (1996) divided their set

of criteria used to define family business in measurements such as percentage of ownership,

voting control, power over strategic direction, involvement of multiple generations, active

management by family members, and others, into three groups, as depicted in figure 1 (pp.

108-109).

28

Figure 1: Family Business Definition by Degree of Family Involvement (Shanker, &

Astrachan, 1996, p. 109)

The broadest and most inclusive definition of a family business should incorporate

some degree of control over strategic decisions by the family and the intention to keep the

business in the family. The middle division includes the founder or descendant running the

company and having the legal control over the voting stock. The narrowest definition

requires the business to have multiple generations involved, direct family involvement in

daily operations, and more than one family member having a significant responsibility in the

management (p. 109). However, as this scheme comprises three generic levels of family

involvement, finer distinctions that could be useful in understanding family business

behaviour appear without recognition (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002, p. 47)

The utilization of differing operational definitions by various researchers makes it

challenging or even impossible to compare different family business studies, especially in an

international context where families and cultures differ not only across geographical

boundaries, but also over time (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002, pp. 45-46). Recent work

by Astrachan, Klein, and Smyrnios (2002) on the creation of the F-PEC scale seeks to resolve

this problem (Spoehr, 2005, p. 4). The authors propose an alternative method for assessing

the extent of family influence on any firm, enabling the measurement of the impact of family

on outcomes such as success, failure, strategy, and operations. They argue that a functional

definition must be unambiguous and transparent in such a way that is can be quantified. The

F-PEC, a standardized and valid instrument comprising three subscales of power, experience,

and culture, enables the assessment of family influence on a continuous scale rather than

restrict its use as a categorical (e.g., yes/no) variable (Astrachan, Klein, & Smyrnios, 2002, p.

29

45). Through the power dimension, the family can influence the business through ownership,

governance, and management. Through the experience dimension, family influence is

categorized as the generation in charge. The greatest benefits in experience through

succession processes are gained during the transition from the first to second generation. The

culture dimension manifests itself through family and business values. The F-PEC scale

measures to what extent the family and business values overlap (Spoehr, 2005, p.4). The

development of a standardized instrument, such as the F-PEC, enables sound comparisons

across the investigation, and the possibility of assessing the family influence in terms of

either dependent, independent, moderating, or mediating variables (Astrachan, Klein, &

Smyrnios, 2002, p. 51).

This thesis will adopt the definition of Klein (2010, p. 3) that distinguishes family from

non-family businesses by the degree of involvement of the family. In a family firm one or

many family members must be present to such an extent that they influence and change the

everyday corporate business, the questioning, problems, and the strengths of the firm. Thus,

the family has influence on the business.

3.2 Theoretical Background In order to elaborate on the aspects that must be taken into account in the context of

consulting, an encompassing picture of family businesses is provided. When referring to the

differences of family businesses that advisors must address, the increased complexity dealing

within different subsystems may be seen as the main component. However, in a healthy

family business, there are significant benefits from the strong sense of family loyalty,

enhanced efficiency and other empowering and binding sources. The theoretical background

will cover both supporting and challenging perspectives of family firms. Typical family

business characteristics will serve as an introduction to the theoretical background, before

leading into to the notion of “familiness”. Subsequently, this chapter reveals three generic

paradoxes on family business operating in today¹s competitive environment. The core theory,

the Three-Circle Model and it¹s continuation, the Three-Dimensional Development Model

incorporating the dimension of time, will elucidate challenges working within the three

subsystems of a family business, which are family, business and ownership. This background

provides the reader with a fundamental understanding of family businesses and sets the scene

for the discussion and conclusion.

30

3.2.1 Characteristics of Family Businesses

When Freud was asked what he considered to be the secret of a full life, he gave a

three-word answer: “Lieben und arbeiten” – love and work. For a large majority of people,

the two most important things in their lives are their families and their work. This makes it

easy to comprehend the compelling power of businesses that combine both (Gersick, 1997, p.

2).

Family businesses to date shape the profile of our economy and are the predominant

form of enterprise around the world (Wimmer et al., 2005, p. IX; Gersick, 1997, p.3).

According to a study of PricewaterhouseCoopers (Widrig, 2007, p. 2) 272’000 out of

307’700 Swiss firms are owned by families. They range from the tiny shop in the

neighbourhood to the millions of small and midsize companies that underpin many

economies to the large corporations such as BMW, Samsung, and Wal-Mart Stores (Casper,

Dias, Eistrodt, 2010, p. 2). The variety is enormous, but all of these diverse businesses share

one core characteristic: they are connected to a family, and that is what makes them a special

kind of business (Gersick, 1997, p. 1).

According to Moscetello, 1990, (in Hoffman, Hoelscher, Sorenson, 2006, p. 135)

family businesses have competitive advantages over non-family businesses. The reason for

this advantage of performance, however, has not yet been discovered or fully understood

until now. Different researchers have come up with several examples of resources unique to

family businesses. Moscetello, 1990, states that a concentration of shares in family

management hands, leads to a strong sense of mission, well-defined sustainable goals, a

capacity for self-analysis, and the ability to adapt to major changes without losing momentum

(in Habbershon, & Williams, 1999, p. 4). One reason may lie within the work environment,

which is unique to every family business and inspires employee’s care and loyalty (Ward,

1988, in Hoffman, Hoelscher, & Sorenson, 2006, p. 135). Compared to non-family

businesses, family businesses have lower recruitment and human resource costs, and are

therefore more effective than other companies in labour-intensive business fields (Levring, &

Moskowitz, 1993, in Hoffman, Hoelscher, & Sorenson, 2006, p. 135). Tagiuri and Davis

(1996, p. 205) see the “family language” as an advantage that allows family members to

communicate more efficiently than is generally possible among nonrelatives, even among

close friends. It can enable relatives to exchange more information with greater privacy and

31

thus arrive at decisions more promptly than two unrelated persons can. A further strong point

of family businesses is the lifelong common history. The behaviour of blood relatives

working together is in part influenced by the fact that they have lived with one another

throughout their lives. A considerable amount of shared experience emerges out of that

common history, even though each family member has his or her own perception of that

experience. From their time together, relatives can learn a great deal about each other’s

strengths and weaknesses. They can use this knowledge by trying to draw on one another’s

strengths and work to complement each other’s weaknesses (p. 203). Aronoff and Ward

(1995, p. 123) perceive a comparative advantage for family businesses in the inseparable

family objectives and business strategies, all the more when taking their pre-industrial milieu

and the disparate cultures into account. Networks of trust remain the basis for expansion and

perpetuation, family reputation continues as a basis for survival and prosperity, and a

reputation for moral integrity continues to reduce transaction costs. The true strengths of

family businesses are seen when owners are committed to generational perspectives, not

thinking in terms of exit strategies or exclusive maximization of financial returns. Family

businesses seek maximization of inherent values – as defined not by the market, but by the

families themselves. Oftentimes, market values and family values correspond over the long

term, producing outcomes that are, as Inc. (incorporated) suggested, good for both, business

and soul (p. 130).

3.2.2 “Familiness”

Over the past 25 years, the field of family business studies has evolved significantly in

understanding how family firms are different in their organizational composition and

performance capabilities from other businesses. Notable contributions have been made in

identifying the systemic nature of the family firm behaviour, some of them mentioned above

(Habbershon, & Williams, 1999, p. 3). However, up until 1999, the field of family business

studies has not been precise in its definition of a family firm and furthermore, there has been

no clear and cohesive theoretical framework that could provide a structure for analysis and a

lens through which to assess family firm performance capabilities (pp. 5-6). Incorporating

previous research, concepts and models, Habbershon and Williams (1999) have come up with

the term “familiness” that describes the family business resources of a given firm. “More

specifically, familiness is defined as the unique bundle of resources a particular firm has

because of the systems interaction between the family, its individual members, and the

32

business. This definition of familiness provides a unified systems perspective on family firm

performance capabilities and competitive advantage” (p. 11). To put it in other words,

Chrisman, Chua, and Litz (2003, p. 430) understand familiness as “the unique, inseparable,

and synergistic resources and capabilities arising from family involvement and interactions”.

Depending upon the nature of the systemic influences, family-influenced firms have unique

potential advantages such as gaining trust, cost of capital, human resources policies,

leadership development, alliance building strategies, and decision making (Habbershon,

Williams, & MacMillan, 2003, p. 14). Therefore, as a result of direct family leadership for

instance, the familiness of a company can become apparent in a long-term investment

horizon, a deep-rooted entrepreneurial culture, a reputation for high-quality products or a

high flexibility in decision-making (Mühlebach, 2005, p. 9).

It is important to note that not all of a firm’s resources or familiness provide a

competitive advantage. Valuable but common resources may ensure the survival through

competitive parity but may not provide a long lasting competitive advantage. If familiness is

to provide a substantial advantage, the bundle of resources needs to be well managed and

maintained, as this finally determines the success or failure of any family firm (Habbershon,

& Williams, 1999, pp. 11-12). In other words, familiness is not always an asset. Strategic

rigidity, nepotism or family conflicts are just a few well-known examples of the negative

aspects of familiness. Family businesses are faced with the challenge of maximizing the

positive and simultaneously minimizing the negative aspects of familiness, both of which are

inherent in the family business organization (Mühlebach, 2005, p. 10). Resembling outcomes

were shown in the work of Tagiuri and Davis (1996, p. 200) revealing that family companies

have several unique, inherent attributes, some of which were mentioned above and others

will be further elaborated on in the discussion (see chapter 5). Each key attribute is a source

of both, benefits and disadvantages for the families in control, non-family employees, and

family employees. Due to their latent negative and positive potential, Tagiuri and Davis

called these inherent features “Bivalent Attributes”. They were derived directly from the

overlap of family, ownership and management memberships, elaborated in a theory that gives

a conceptual account for many important behavioural characteristics of the family company –

the Three-Circle Model (see chapter 3.2.4). However, before looking at family businesses

from a mainly inside perspective, the outside perspective should be considered, thus shedding

light on the interaction with the environment.

33

3.2.3 Three Generic Paradoxes of Family Businesses

Many family businesses are successful over generations, have a dominant position in

their niche markets and assert themselves in the global market. Others collapse at an early

stage because of their reluctance to relinquish obsolete success strategies, their failure to

adapt to changing market conditions, or due to succession challenges or shareholder conflicts.

In order to understand this complex character, an understanding of the coevolution of firms

and families, and the resulting paradoxes is required. It is the paradoxes that cause the

enhanced chance and risk potential of that specific type of entity (von Schlippe, & Groth, in

Deissler, 2006, p. 109). The three basic paradoxes of family businesses, defined by Simon,

Wimmer, & Groth (2005) are shown in the figure 2 a,b,c (pp. 150-204). While the orientation

towards emotional commitment, autonomy and traditions make family businesses survive,

the principles that make publicly owned firms capable of acting are rational and economical

decisions-making, openness towards their environment and adaptability.

Figure 2 a: Paradox 1 of family businesses (cf. Simon, Wimmer, & Groth, 2005) Decisions based on emotions versus economic and rational decision-making: In family

businesses factors such as characters, relationships, long-term mutual developments paths are

central, whereas non-family firms are defined by formal functions and structures, institutional

and non individual-related rules and policies, and short-term development processes.

Figure 2 b: Paradox 2 of family businesses (cf. Simon, Wimmer, & Groth, 2005)

Emotional Commitment

• Characters• Relationships• Long-termdevelopmentspaths• Emotions

EconomicDecisions

• Functions• StructuresandProcesses• Shor-termdevelopmentpaths• Nonindividual-relatedrules

Autonomy

• Independence as Value• Outward demarcation

Openness

• Collaboration as necessity• Opening towards contiguous systems

34

The family ideal of autonomy versus the recognition of independence in terms of the

environment and therefore openness of the system: For family businesses independence, in

other words, the outward demarcation plays an important factor in their identity formation.

Non-family companies, however, perceive far-reaching collaboration and therefore an

opening towards contiguous systems as critical for success.

Figure 2 c: Paradox 3 of family businesses (cf. Simon, Wimmer, & Groth, 2005)

Identity preservation through tradition and stability versus willingness to change and

flexibility: While the identity of families for the most part lies on specific values, traditions,

or basic convictions, the success for non-family businesses is attained by flexibility and the

capability of adapting to permanently changing market conditions.

Irritation, contradictions, and inconsistency occur whenever these dimensions interact

due to the diffusions of the two different lifeworlds (Carlock, & Ward, 2001, in Deissler,

2006, p. 62). There is intrinsically no solution for eliminating these paradoxes. The only

possibility to create a constructive handling of them, is to reveal the fundamentally

conflicting logic of both dimensions and make them workable. As expected for every

concrete situation, where the values of two dimensions conflict, they have to be balanced

anew (Deissler, 2006, p. 62).

The above-mentioned conflicts occur between family businesses and the rapidly

changing economical environment. However, conflicts in family businesses often arise within

the firm, on a quasi yet deeper level. Discussions concerning strategy, planning, growth, or

the performance of family firms inevitably expose the contradictions that arise between the

family and the business system (Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003, p. 5).

Tradition

• Values• Traditional Action Patterns• Basic Conviction of Founder

Adaptability

• Flexibility• Permanent Adaptability to changing market conditions

35

3.2.4 The Three Circle Model

A two overlapping-circles model has been the basic theoretical model for depicting the

family and business as a combined system and for explaining the competitive tensions within

the system (Habbershon, Williams, & MacMillan, 2003, p. 5). Each of these two circles

possesses its own norms, membership rules, values and organizational structures. Problems

occur because the same individuals have to fulfil obligations in both circles. The business

itself has to operate according to sound business practices and principles, while meeting the

family needs for employment, identity, and income. Hence, the key challenge for family

enterprises is to find strategies that satisfy both subsystems (Gersick, 1997, p.5).

Tagiuri and Davis (1982) identified the importance of a third subsystem – ownership –

which overlaps with the others, but has a distinctly different purpose and agenda (Murray and

McCracken, 2000, p. 2). Introducing a third circle, gives a more accurate portrayal of the full

range of family firms, as a critical distinction has to be made between the ownership and

management subsystems within the business circle. “Many of the most important dilemmas

faced by family businesses […] have more to do with the distinction between owners and

managers than between the family and the business as a whole” (Gersick, 1997, p.5). The

Three-Circle Model illustrated in figure 3 describes the family business system as three

independent but overlapping subsystems: business, ownership, and family, where every

system has its own logic with according rules and language-games (Gersick, 1997, p. 6; von

Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 23).

Figure 3: The "Three-Circle" model of family business by Tagiuri and Davis (1982) (Tagiuri, & Davis, 1992, p. 49).

36

The three sub-chapters look at the logics and rules of each circle with its opportunities

and threats to the success of family businesses that can arise within.

The Family Circle

Family business members have an investment “stake” in the firm, independent of

whether or not they are actively involved in ownership or employment. Their interests and

concerns in the business may be due to impacts on the family such as the health and

wellbeing of the present, or the possibility of future career prospects for the younger

generation (Murray, & McCracken, 2000, p. 4).

Considering the importance of the business to its family it is vital to identify and act on

potential risks and threats at an early stage. Lansberg (1988) for instance, identified a threat

that could in some cases lead to an end of the business. Most family-business leaders know

and own just one business. When it matures, a possible scenario in a fast growing economy,

they have few options but to hold on to a weakening asset. Most leaders choose to nurse the

business along rather than shift the focus to new growth possibilities because the business is

their creation, their identity, and their comfort (in Ward, 1997, p. 325). Furthermore, the

changing social framework conditions show tendencies to individualization and redemption

from established and secured family constellations. The family itself can no longer be seen as

a stabilizing element due to high divorce rates and remarriages, and neither can the

cohesiveness of the classical family be assumed (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004, p. 10).

Many family business researchers have in fact identified that divorce is the most tremendous

and increasingly common indication of “overload” that results from family members

attempting to satisfy both work and family roles (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; O’Driscoll,

Ilgen, & Hildreth, 1992 in Rutherford, Muse, & Oswald, 2006, p. 321). For these reasons, an

active family management is required in order to establish a range of organizational

principles, where all of the three subsystems cooperate and collaborate, supporting the family

and business in challenging times (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004, p. 11).

The Business Circle

The development of the business can also have natural decoupling effects on family

and business. An apprehension, the threat of nepotism, comes into play when looking at

37

employees, who are neither owners nor family members. They will be concerned about

career prospects and job security (Murray, & McCracken, 2000, p. 3). However, Stryker

(1957, p. 228) noted down “the overriding fact is […] that competition and the demands of

the marketplace soon take care of any company that relies on incompetent relatives in

management.” Donnelley states that, despite of this, every family-identified firm must be

concerned with possible favouritism involved in the personal policies, since popular opinion

almost automatically suspects such an abuse in almost all family firms (Donnelley, 1988, p.

423).

The traditional forms of financing is a further aspect to be mentioned. The classical

combination of cash-flow generated stockholder’s equity, external debt financing, and the

corporate loans as a basic pattern entails growth limitations. It is the appropriate financing

pattern for organic growth, one of the family businesses’ characteristic principles. However,

comparing today’s preferential rapid growth by Mergers & Acquisitions or fusions, there is

not much freedom. In fields where organic growth has been established there is not a large

threat towards family businesses, but the situation looks somewhat different in fields where

the capital demands exceed that and where short-term capital needs are essential to remain in

business (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004, in von Schlippe et al., 2009, pp. 109-110).

Looking at the business-circle a whole range of family businesses, however, has

revealed that many of them have outgrown their initial core competencies while never

overstrained their own financial power. This growth principle has not led the firms into an

adverse competitive position (pp. 111-112).

The Ownership Circle

The occurrence of a variety of isolated, often opposing interests has negative impacts

hindering the common volition of the owners. Once shareholders leave the firm in order to

attain better investment opportunities and the individual interests obtain priority over the

surviving business needs, a vicious circle is unstoppable (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004,

pp. 12-13). Those who own parts of the business but are not members of the family and do

not work in the company, will expect business decisions to be clearly separated from family

dynamics, thus expecting the impossible (Murray, & McCracken, 2000, p. 3). This conflict-

laden ownership position could considerably impede the family business and have a

38

detaching effect on the family and business identification (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004, p.

12).

However, looking at the successful intergenerational family businesses shows that in

financially threatening periods the family business has had priority over the particular

individual interests and payouts to the shareholders occur only rarely. This highlights the

potentially tremendous performance of a unified family business with the benefits of a strong

solidarity and cohesion that can keep a family business together against many odds. The

focus is on emotional togetherness, rather than a rational prioritization (Wimmer, Groth, &

Simon, 2004, in von Schlippe et al., 2009, pp. 109-110).

The Intersection of the Three Circles

Looking at the intersections, emotional (family), economic (business), and strategic

(ownership), logics can manoeuvre stakeholders into situations where they are possibly not

entirely aware of what role or perspective they are currently finding themselves in. What can

be seen as correct from one person’s perspective might be perceived as wrong from another

(von Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 23). A father who decides against his son as successor, because

he simply might not be suitable, can cause an irreparable breach within the family, as

according to the family logic he would be obliged to put the closest affiliate first. The

communication and behaviour of the role within a family and the role within a company

differs greatly. Often it is ambiguous to judge what position in the subsystem, operating in

multiple circles, is taking up. This constellation can lead to severe confusion and

misunderstandings (von Schlippe et al., 2008, p. 24). Bateson (1981) points out that the

meaning and semantics in communication is determined by the respective “context-marking”

that defines and clarifies the given situation. In family businesses however, there is

frequently a lack of explicit context-marking. This causes uncertainties to arise, which play a

central paradox and represent a major challenge for families to overcome (in von Schlippe et

al., 2008, p. 24).

Simultaneous Roles

Tagiuri and Davis (1996, pp. 201-202) refer to this complexity as simultaneous roles,

as family members working in the family firm can be acting in three circles, or in other words

can have three roles at the same time as: relatives, owners, and managers. Three circles with

39

different focal points and alignments: the family being predominately concerned with the

wellbeing, the unity of the family and the financial provisions of the family members; the

owners interested in returns on investments and the economical success of the firm; and the

managers endeavouring to be competitive and working towards the firm’s operational

effectiveness (Hilb, Höppner, Leenen, & Mühlebach 2009, p. 36). Simultaneous roles can

have a positive influence, by bonding relatives loyally to each other and the firm. The loyalty

can involve standing behind one another’s decisions, reducing the struggle for power within

the company, giving rise to cooperation and trust, and creating a sympathetic understanding

of one another’s shortcomings, along with the pride in one another’s strengths. Lansberg

(1983) and Kepner (1983) point out, the overlap of family and business life may provide an

integrating mechanism not available to non-family firms. Family businesses can serve as a

means of uniting a family behind a common goal and provide a method for reducing the

usual strains of non-family firms, such as the feeling that an extra hour worked is an

additional hour away from the family (in Lee, & Rogoff, 1996, p. 432). Also, when one or

more relatives have simultaneous roles, decision-making can become centralized. That causes

the efficiency, effectiveness, and privacy of the decision-making process to increase.

However, in general, norms of behaviour within the family and those within the business are

opposed. It is therefore not surprising that there can also be negative outcomes that flow from

simultaneous roles. Family, ownership, and business issues can become mixed up; business

discussions may be transformed into aggravated arguments about family issues, while family

decisions may be based on the company needs. Consequently, this can lead to companies

suffering from a lack of marketplace objectivity and poor profit discipline, and families form

a feeling that relatives are sacrificed for the good of the firm (Tagiuri, & Davis, 1996, pp.

201-202).

Gersick’s (1997, p. 7) example highlights how the three-circle model can help to see in

what way organizational and simultaneous roles can colour a person’s point of view and how

family struggles over dividend policy or succession planning become understandable if each

participant’s position in the system model is looked at separately. An individual person

(family member/owner/nonemployee) may want to increase dividends, thinking that it is a

legitimate reward of family membership and a reasonable return on investment as an owner.

On the other hand, another individual (family member/employee/non-owner) may want to

suspend dividends in order to reinvest in expansion that might create better career

40

advancement opportunities. These two persons may also be siblings, usually with similar

personalities and styles, and with a close emotional bond, but who do not understand why

they cannot agree on this issue. By separating the domains, the model clarifies the motivation

and perspectives of individuals in the overall system and helps understanding the complexity

of family businesses (Gersick, 1997, p. 7; Rutherford, Muse, & Oswald, 2006, p. 318).

For the past decade and a half, the three-circle model has been the primary conceptual

model of family business (Gersick, Lansberg, Desjadrins, Dunn, 1999, p. 287). However, an

additional dimension is needed to bring this framework to life, and to make it more

applicable to the reality of family businesses – the dimension of time (Gersick, 1997 p. 11).

3.2.5 The Three-Dimensional Developmental Model

The business, ownership, and family circle-model can reflect a snapshot of any family

business system at a particular point in time, which can be valuable and helpful in trying to

understand the firm in the first step. However, many of the most important dilemmas that

family businesses encounter are caused by the passage of time (Gersick, 1997, p. 16).

Ward (1987, p. 1) stated that “keeping a family business alive is perhaps the toughest

management job on earth”. Family businesses have found themselves competing in a more

aggressive environment in the last twenty years and there are many external reasons for this

change, such as businesses mature, markets and technology change, or suppliers and

customers alter the rules of the game. Any of these changes can take a company by surprise,

resulting in sales and profits to decrease. However, more often, family businesses discover

that the family itself is the source of the problem. Internal reasons can be unresolved personal

conflicts, lack of trust, difficult family relationships, or family demands on the business

(Carlock, & Ward, 2001, pp. 3-4). The specific coupling of family, respectively ownership,

and business is a great challenge because family and ownership interests never move

simultaneously. In the founding generation a fundamental harmony over a long period of

time can be obtained due to the pioneer’s personality. However, over time interests do not

coincide but conflict within the three circles (Wimmer, Groth, & Simon, 2004, p. 9).

Taking the time issue into consideration, Gersick et al. (1999, p. 287) found it useful to

transform the three-circle concept into a developmental model in which each of the three sub-

systems moves through a sequence of stages over time. Every subsystem – family, business,

and business – is now represented by a separate developmental dimension exhibited in figure

41

4 (Gersick, 1997, p. 16). Each axis still has its own characteristic dynamics and logics, but is

also being influenced by the others. Over time the three poles change their configuration in a

distinctive way.

Figure 4: The 3-Dimensional Developmental Model (Gersick, 1997, p. 17)

All of the three subsystems go through a sequence of stages. These developmental

progressions influence each other even though they are independent. Each part changes at its

own pace and its own sequence (Gersick, 1997, p. 18). Families, for instance, usually follow a

very different development pace compared to the business system, which might advance

through accelerated growth (von Schlippe et al., 2009, p. 102).

Every family business has progressed to some point on the ownership, family, and the

business axis. As the family firm moves to a new stage along the axis, it takes on a new shape

accompanied with new characteristics (Gersick, 1997, p. 18). The transition periods are the

most critical and challenging moments in the development of family companies. Transitions

are usually periods when fundamental choices are being made that have significant impacts

on the future. It is therefore understandable that decision makers often feel anxious and

vulnerable during those periods. Focusing on the transitions, however, does not necessarily

imply that periods of stability within each stage can be assumed. The transitions are

42

opportunities for reassessing the course the business is following and for fundamental change.

The major opportunity for focus and growth is during the periods in the middle of a stage,

when the firm is committed to a particular ownership structure or organizational design. Both

periods, transitions and stability, allowing for change respectively growth, are essential for

success and continuity, although they require different kinds of work (Gersick, Lansberg,

Desjardins, & Dunn, 1999, p. 287).

The Family Developmental Dimension

The model’s second dimension shows the development of the family over time and

captures the structural and interpersonal development through issues such as marriage,

parenthood, adult sibling relationships, in-laws, communication patterns, and family roles.

Splitting business families into developmental subgroups helps to sort out the huge variety of

business-owning families. The transition from one stage to another is usually a recognizable,

meaningful moment in a family’s history and it can be of big help for families to learn about

the challenges that very probably await them in later developmental stages, in order to

anticipate and prepare for their future (Gersick, 1997, p. 19).

Having the life history incorporated in the developmental theory, four groups were

divided by the ages of the members and each generation which is active in the business. The

first group is the “Young Business Family”, operating in a period of intense activity (Gersick,

1997, p. 19). The founding family usually consists of the pioneer, the partner and perhaps

children. In this stage the construction, solidarity, and the stabilization of the family is central

(Hilb, Höppner, Leenen, & Mühlebach 2009, p. 38). After the education of the founder’s

children has finished, they step in, reaching the next stage, “Entering the Business”. Families

have to nurture the movement of the younger generation out of childhood and into productive

lives as adults. “Entering the Business”-families are concerned with creating entry criteria

and career paths for the young adult generation, including the decision whether or not to join

the firm. Over time, relationships have stabilized and the “Working Together” stage is

reached. In this phase, the issue is to manage the complex relations of parents, siblings, in-

laws, cousins, and children of widely ranging ages (Gersick, 1997, p. 21). Furthermore, the

motivation, newly gained knowledge and richness of ideas of the succeeding generation

should be interwoven with the traditional practices (Hilb, et al., 2009, p. 38). The capacity of

the business system to support a rapidly expanding family is being tested in two ways: can

43

the company’s profitability keep up with the income needs of the family, and can the size of

the business provide meaningful career opportunities for qualified family members.

Moreover, there is a new adult generation adding to the mix of marriage, divorce and

remarriage, stepchildren, half-siblings, and grandparenthood. The goal of working together

can only be achieved by having the skills of conducting an orchestra. The final step is

“Passing the Baton”, when everyone is preoccupied with transition and the big business issue

is about the succession (Gersick, 1997, pp. 21-21). If the succeeding generation is capable of

taking over the business without requiring help from the previous generation, and the

previous generation is able to retire without any financial burdens, then the work of “Passing

the Baton” can be seen as successfully completed - and the cycle begins again (Hilb, et al.,

2009, p. 38).

The Business Developmental Dimension

This dimension describes the development of the business over time. The business’s

developmental stage often has an influential and powerful but hidden impact on such

decisions as sales of family shares to outsiders or the succession of family leadership. The

first stage, “Start-Up”, covers the founding of the company or new business units and the first

few years when survival is in question (Gersick, 1997, p. 21). Therefore, it is crucial to

establish the concept in the market and to build up a solid customer base, laying the

organizational foundation of the firm (Hilb, et al., 2009, p. 38). The second stage,

“Expansion/Formalization”, includes a broad spectrum of enterprises (Gersick, 1997, p. ).

Managerial tasks become more important as there is a threat that the firms cannot deal with

the growing sales, causing the need for increased administrative and organizational skills.

The final stage is “Maturity” characterized by stable relationships. However, it becomes yet

more important for the firm to maintain its driving force in order to avoid reaching the phase

where a “Turnaround” is required (Hilb, Höppner, Leenen, & Mühlebach 2009, p. 38).

The different life cycle phases, each raising different and unique challenges, show

clearly that family businesses are constantly in motion, and distinctions between stages blur

(Hilb, et al., 2009, p. 40; Gersick, 1997, p. 24). Also, each business has individual financial

means at its disposal to overcome those problems (Hilb, et al., 2009, p. 38). Of course, there

are limits to the usefulness of a typology of anything as complex and difficult as a family

business (Gersick, 1997, p. 24). Nonetheless, the model makes an important contribution in

44

that it recommends distinctive structures and strategies for the family business system based

upon the life-cycle stage and constituency group that results from the overlap of the family,

business, and the ownership dimensions (Gersick, 1997, p. 24; Habbershon, Willisams, &

MacMillan, 2003, p. 7).

The Ownership Developmental Dimension

The final dimension recognizes that the different forms of family ownership results in

fundamental differences in every aspect of the family business. There are three major phases,

however, there is an almost limitless array of ownership structures in family firms (Hilb, et

al., 2009, p. 39; Gersick, 1997, p. 18). Some firms are owned by one person only, by a couple,

or by two unrelated partners. At the other end of the complexity scale are companies owned

by combinations of family members, public shareholders, trusts, and other companies

(Gersick, 1997, pp. 18-19). Somewhat simplified, the core issues of ownership can be

described in the three stages: Controlling Owner companies, where the founder decides on

the direction of the firm and its financial setting; Sibling Partnerships, which usually occur

after the first or second succession and where the collaboration between the siblings plays an

essential role for the survival of the company; and Cousin Consortium companies, where the

amount of owners has multiplied and the establishment of mechanisms for decision-finding

and conflict-solving plays a substantial role (Hilb, et al., 2009, p. 39). This developmental

dimension assumes an underlying developmental direction, even though other possible

sequences are manifold. Yet, these three developmental stages explain most of the variance

across the widest range of companies (Gersick, 1997, p. 19).

The reason that the three-circle model has met with such widespread acceptance is that

it is both theoretically straightforward and immediately applicable (Gersick, 1997, p. 7). The

model’s best use is to provide a predictable framework for the development of family

businesses over time in each dimension, and to suggest how a recognition of the current stage

– and the combination of stages across the three dimensions – helps to analyse the dynamics

of a family firm (p. 24). It is a very useful tool for understanding the problems generated for

the family business by the clash of interests of its different members, together with the

existence of individuals who play two or even three roles, with the confusion this creates and

45

the difficulty of responding in the right measure to each set of interests (Gimeno, Baulenas,

& Coma-Cros, 2010, p. 8).

46

4 Results

This chapter describes the interview results without an interpretation.

It subsequently enables the author, by using the deductive reasoning to examine whether the

discussed theories and concepts apply to the strategic sample, or more concretely, whether

the described theoretical models, respectively tools, enable the family business consultants to

better analyse the dynamics of a family firm.

4.1 Observations – Incentives to work with Family Businesses

Summarized, the main incentives for family business consultants to work with family

firms are: the challenge of having to deliver service more in less time, as family businesses

are careful with spending money; being able to operate on an eye level directly with the

pioneer; the establishment of personal relationships that are long lasting; and dealing in an

agile way with the family members, resulting with effective and necessary changes.

The incentives or reasons for consultants to specialize in family businesses are

multiple. Consultant 1 has two views on advising family businesses. On the one hand he

perceives consulting family firms as a curse because they are very careful with spending

money and believe that professional advisors cost a lot. On the other hand, this is what makes

consulting family businesses an interesting challenge. They expect higher performance in less

time than non-family businesses do. The reason is that the financial pressure is not as strong

for publicly owned companies since the costs do not directly influence the personal profit.

Family business leader 3 mentioned the opposite. He believes that family businesses are more

long-term orientated, meaning for the consultant to be working in a stable environment.

Being engaged as an external advisor means a lot of work at first for the consultant, however,

the amount of work will decrease, but due to the long-term orientation, he will remain

alongside the company. Hence, working with family businesses might be more profitable.

Consultant 1 appreciates the role of the advisor working and operating on eye level with the

pioneer and/or manager and being the “enfant terrible”, that is, being in the position to raise

47

precarious issues that otherwise no one else dares to, due to (too much) respect for the

pioneer. Consultant 2 sees the main incentive in the personal relationships with interesting

and fascinating people that in most cases evolve over time.

The individual-related consulting is of higher value and has a more focused point of

view than purely technical matters.

The agility of family businesses, i.e. having the competence as the company leader to

rapidly make decisions, and also the openness towards new ideas and unconventional

solutions that might not have been proven yet, are further incentives according to all

consultant interviewees. Consultant 1 appreciates fast decision-making. He thinks that

prompt decisions are usually the best, and only taking no decisions is detrimental to the firm

as the employees lose their motivation and the leader his standing. Certain discussions are

necessary but at some point, decisions are needed. Consultant 3 also believes family

businesses to be very agile and takes this argument one step further. He experienced that in

large companies a lot of work and efforts are being wasted. This might be solely because one

person in the hierarchical pyramid does not entirely agree, which finally causes overall

frustration for the other family member. In family businesses, however, if the manager

approves the concept developed by the consultant, it will most likely will be enforced and

implemented.

4.2 Observations – Hesitation and Inhibition to Seek Consulting

Summarized, the main hesitations for family businesses to bring in a consultant are:

their perception of consultants being too expensive and not adding sufficient value; that in

small businesses the leader may not have the capacity to take the managerial responsibilities

of the company, which would include consultation; thinking that consultation results may be

without sustainable effects; that important decisions should be taken by the management

without external advisors; that there are too long time lags until break-even point is reached,

thus costs are covered.

There are many reasons for explaining the inhibition and hesitation on the part of

family businesses. Consultant 1 mentions a whole range of reasons. Consulting being

48

expensive and useless, is the perception of many family businesses. Consultant 3, on the

other hand disagrees, as he argues that business owners invest financial resources when

acquiring assets or when patenting their products for instance. Therefore, once they are

convinced of something, they will invest the financial means it takes. Consultant 2 sees it as

the task of the consultant to get as close as possible to the company in order to understand the

issue in depth, and deliver the added value that consulting can provide. Consultant 1 carries

on with the issue of time. In principle, small companies employing not more than 10 people

are run very efficiently. There are too few conceptual working knowledge carriers and

therefore, the business owner is involved in the daily operations restricting him from

discharging the task of managerial duties, such as working together with a consultant for

instance.

Family businesses leaders 1 and 2 both believe that for the creation of the fundamental

roadmap, such as strategy formulation or organisational development, the required skills

optimally lie within the company, and should not be delegated to external consultants. Family

business owner 2 experienced consulting in such a way that it has restrained him from

seeking further advice. The reason is that he could not discern a sustainable effect. when his

father had the leading role in the company, they engaged various services of consultants such

as three day workshops where usually all the employees from all hierarchical levels

participated. The intention was to improve the firm’s culture and thus the employees’

satisfaction by exchanging ideas concerning the right commerce and dealing. However, he

realized that most of the employees after a while had understood the meaning and perceived

the seminars rather as a waste of time and in fact, would have preferred to do their job in an

independent and responsible manner, which would have increased their motivation. Business

leader 2, however, also admits that one thing he learned from consulting was to directly and

openly tackle difficulties within the team, and that this approach is highly appreciated by all

of the employees. On the other hand, some employees after a couple of days found

themselves in the old pattern, and what remained was a pile of paper with good, but

unrealized, ideas. Leader 2 clearly sees that there is still room for improvement, however, he

is convinced that increasing the employees’ satisfaction is a managerial task that can be

accomplished by giving the employees the feeling of appreciation and showing interest in

their work, rather than with hiring external help. This has a greater effect than expensive

49

seminars of questionable value. In terms of finding reasons for the short term effects, family

business leader 2 states that this particular problem was discussed in different consulting

sessions with the involved advisors. It resulted in the development of different measures such

as on the job and reciprocated employee coaching. In single cases the effectiveness was

enhanced, but nonetheless, an adverse reaction towards the impact remains. However, only a

part of the blame can be shifted onto the consultant. Too few practically applicable solutions

were implemented and the vigour that should have come from the management to enforce the

insights gained from the sessions and workshops was lacking.

Family business leader 2 is of the opinion that a successful consultant should be

interested in providing solutions with sustainable value. The possibility of engaging

consultation in the future for specific areas cannot be ruled out, however, key decisions

cannot simply be applied, but rather need to be developed together within the company

management. Family business leader 3 is rather reluctant to engage business consultancy. In

his eyes a consultant comes into the business during difficult times and analyses the problem,

which can economically speaking only have three causes: too high purchasing costs, too high

overhead costs, or too low revenues. Consultants need 3-6 months to get to know the firm

well enough, during which time the company is running losses. After having analysed the

standard problems, they arrive with standard solutions, believing they were able to resolve

the problem. However, this is usually not the case. To really have an impact and effect on a

firm, he believes, that the change needs to come from within the firm. However, in that case

the consultancy can no longer be considered as external. Furthermore, leader 3 thinks that

consultants, particularly crisis managers, can only have an impact if the firm is big enough

and has sufficient financial resources. Management is one of the most costly expenditures

and a lot of time might have to pass, until the incurred consulting costs have been

compensated, or the break-even point has been reached. Therefore, for small firms,

consultants might not make economical sense. However, in terms of specific knowledge that

his company lacks, he would definitely engage specialists.

4.3 Observations – Criteria for choosing a consultant

Summarized, established criteria towards consultants are as follows: the

understanding of the individualty of every family business, having a large network and

50

references that assure good quality expertise, right chemistry that would allow building up a

trustful relationship, the adpitility to customize service to the special needs of the family

businesses, a great amount of experience in the field and in working with family businesses in

general.

In terms of what is important when family businesses decide to make use of an

advisor, consultant 2 emphasised the personal relationship either directly, or indirectly

through recommendations and word of mouth . He believes that a combination of

professional skills and sympathy is what drives effective advice. Furthermore, the consultant

has to be capable of understanding and being sensitive and responsive to the wishes and

needs of the client. Also for consultant 3 it is essential that the chemistry is right. The

consultant must grasp and understand the company’s language and be at eye level with the

business owner. For Family business leaders 1 and 3 it is important that the consultant has

experience in the field concerned and a number of references. This way, consultant 3 says,

the business owner can be certain that the consultant has advised on the specific issue before

and is an expert in the matter. He continues, that this is important since every owner sees his

own business as unique and as functioning differently from all others. Consultant 3 gives an

example of a butcher and a painter. The service they provide is in essence the same,

satisfying the customer and stating accounts, however, business owners usually do not

understand this point, and therefore, understanding and adaptability in a consultant are

criteria in the choosing procedure. This is also what leader 3 says, a personal connection and

empathy are very important factors.

With regards to the size of the consulting firm, all interviewees agree that this does not

play a crucial role. However, consultant 2 states that since the personal consulting is

important to family businesses as a general rule they seek small consulting firms where they

can build up a foundation of personal trust, whereas medium- to large sized companies would

rather go to a big consulting company as the complexity of their need is often bigger, thus the

professional competence plays a crucial role. Consultant 1 agrees with large consulting

companies having more industry specific knowledge throughout the entire supply chain and

therefore benefiting from clusters within their fields. However, consultant 1 argues that a

family business is unlikely to have the most experienced consultant on the team but instead a

junior straight from university who is dealing with the issue for the first time. This is the

51

reason leader 3 gives for not choosing one of the major consulting firms. Even though he is a

leader of a large company, he prefers to bring in individual consultants, where the chemistry

is right and he can rely on years of experience. He appreciates graduates as employees within

the firm or for developing a creative marketing concept, however, for consulting business

matters, experience is essential. Family business leader 2 could imagine that in non-family

businesses the CEO might want to reassure himself by going to one of the large consulting

firms to get future backing in case he had to defend his decisions in front of the board of

directors at a later point. In his case this does not apply as although important issues are

discussed with the board of directors, the end responsibility lies solely with him.

4.4 Observations – Typical Consultant Fields

Summarized, typical consultant fields are the following: no generalization possible;

consulting fields depend on the generation, size, and background of every individual

business; reasons why to bring in a consultant is due to a lack of specific know-how within

own firm or external pressure; opinions on succession vary.

In terms of the causes and reasons for family businesses to engage consultants, there is

an apparent general consensus among them and they include skills for specific issues,

succession, the management-employee relationship and external pressures.

The lack of internal skills for a specific problem or technical issue, be it for attaining a

quality standard certificate or needing support in legal matters, is often seen as the main

reason. Family business owner 1 argues that, as he has studied management and economics at

the university, their firm does not demand classical business consultancy. He has

theoretically and practically, by growing up in the company, learned how to manage a

business and therefore would use consultants only in areas where he is lacking the specific

knowledge. In sub-segments where the company was not competent enough but wanted to

become more knowledgeable, consultants were engaged temporarily in a holistic guidance

approach. Companies in general, approach consultant 1, when they are in need of strategic

and organizational development matters, where his core competencies lie, confirming the

statement about seeking consulting when there is lack of specific knowledge. With regard to

52

the expectations or questions he could not identify any differences between family and non-

family businesses. Consultants 2 and 3 both say that it is not possible to generally specify a

typical field that family businesses are likely to seek consulting in. They give two

explanations why this is the case. Consultant 2 says that the fields they seek consulting in

depends on the individual background of the owner and the company, affirming the statement

of family business owner 2. Someone coming from a legal or economic background will not

likely require advice in the same field but rather in technical matters for instance and vice

versa. For consultant 3, besides the background the generation comes into play. The fields

may vary depending on the generation. If the pioneer is still the company leader then issues

will most likely look different as to when the company is in the hand of a third or fourth

generation, as certain procedures such as the succession, for instance, have been lived

through a couple of times and the company has gained valuable experience.

On the subject of succession the general opinion of the three consultants is that this

topic is overrated. Consultant 1 states that succession is important in every company and that

usually this is not the main problem. Consultant 2 does see succession as a complex concern

and is aware of everyone believing it is the largest issue but in fact, every family business

deals with it very individually and again, the generation the firm is in plays a crucial role.

Firms that have already gone through the whole succession process oftentimes profit from

having grown from the experience. Companies for which it is their first time usually seek a

somewhat more encompassing consultancy and lay the foundation on the personal

relationship. Nonetheless, they perceive a succession as something very personal and only

ask for advice with certain individual and specific issues. According to consultant 2 a one-

size fits all succession consultancy does not exists and he believes that the subject is

somewhat overrated. Nonetheless, consultant 3 elaborates on how people overestimate the

succession issue and how there is talk by the media of the many companies that are

struggling with the order of succession. Yet, looking at the pyramid of Swiss family firms

being in total about 361’000 firms, there are only about a 1000 family companies with more

than 250 employees. According to consultant 3, it is obvious that a few successions fail on

that level, however, without any direct effect on the economy. Only if a succession in a

middle or large sized company fails, there is a notable economical impact. Family business

leader 2 has had good experience with the transition from his father to himself. He thinks the

secret lies in preparing for upcoming issues in advance where possible, and in addressing the

53

succession problem early enough. Both generations have to contemplate how to solve the

issue. He has learned from a consultant that seamless and trouble-free successions before 60

are more likely than after. Therefore, he has fixed a personal cornerstone of 55 years when he

will start to think seriously about the evolution of his firm. Succession could be one field

where family business leader 3 would consider consulting. He sees this issue as an acid test

for every firm where many unexpected consequences are likely to occur. Challenging

decisions need to be taken such as what personnel to keep from the father’s management and

to examine whether there are any know-how deficits within the firm. Usually these transition

phases cause uncertainty and reluctance among the employees. It is especially difficult to

convince employees, in his case butchers and cooks, to switch IT systems after they have

been working in the same company for over 30 years. Those delicate transitions require

understanding and sensitivity from the management and at the same time, determination to

accomplish the set goals and strategies.

Coming back to generic fields, family business owner 2 would perceive it as a reason

to seek advice if he lost ground, the connection to the surrounding environment such as the

employees, or became somewhat too self-confident in the way he manages the firm. He is

aware that the relationship between management and employees is different from the

relationship amongst the employees, however, he has learned to sensitively interpret signs

coming from his workforce and to react accordingly.

As for the trigger, that is the impulse that makes family businesses seek a consultant,

all three consultants mentioned one frequent source namely the pressure coming from outside

the company. Banks or lending institutions for instance, who impose some kind of consulting

on the family business before granting a loan. Consultant 1 has oftentimes experienced that

family businesses turn to a consultant because the bank refused to extend the loan and forced

the firm to find a consultant to analyse the market to see whether there actually is a continued

future demand for the product. Consultant 3 states that different companies, such as ABB,

force their suppliers and particularly family businesses, to define the subsequent regulation

which might mean having to involve a consultant. That way they try in advance to avoid any

preventable disturbance in their value chain. Furthermore, he says that the board of directors

with external members will often strongly advise the company to seek a consultant when

necessary. However, even though he advocates that every family business broaden their

54

perspective by having a board of directors with external members, many firms do not have

one to date.

4.5 Observations – Challenges specific to Family Businesses

Summarized, the challenges that are specifically related to family businesses are the

following: the greatly overall complexity; the scepticism towards consultants, lengthy

process to build trust; delayed action for consultation; avoidance towards costs; dealing with

the pioneer; the wishing to only deal with the symptoms rather with the actual underlying

causes of the problems, and the reluctance to reveal company information.

In terms of the challenges that consultants face when dealing with family businesses,

the great complexity was mentioned throughout all the interviews and includes the differing

priorities of owner and manager

Consultant 2 sees for instance the eventuality of getting involved in a conflict as a

consultant among family business owners and managers, as oftentimes their interests are

directed towards different priorities. The owner wants to profit from the company and

expects dividends while the manager’s intention is to reinvest the money for growing

purposes. Consultant 3 states that advisors can discuss both positions and try to reduce the

conflict of interest to a common denominator, however, advisors never decide but only

consult, and under certain circumstances might take a mediating role, supporting the owners

or managers to become convinced themselves of the appropriate resolution. Consultant 3

further mentions the various interests of all family members, all expecting a stake of the

company. According to him it is hardly feasible to find a solution that satisfies each and

every family member. These circumstances can then easily cause emotional issues within the

family, complicating the entire business dynamic. Family business leader 2 agrees and finds

it problematic to have shareholders providing equity that are not involved in the daily

operational business. Those circumstances create a conflict of interest between the stake- and

shareholder approaches.

A further challenge is the perception of the family business towards the consultant.

Consultants 2 and 3 both felt suspicion and mistrust coming from the family business leaders

55

towards them, at least in the beginning of the consulting phase. Family business leader 2

confirms that by saying openly that he is sceptical at first, and before revealing too much

information he wants to assess the abilities of the consultant, and allow trust to develop. He

does not want to immediately provide the consultant with confidential company information

and later realize that the consultant did not have the experience and skills to solve the issue

but gained valuable experience at the firm’s on his costs. Family business leader 3 does not

believe that external consultants can actually make a difference. Advisors can only point out

existing problems but from outside the firm, they do not have the capability to resolve them.

According to consultant 3 pioneers are unique people with a psychological damage who do

not perceive the reality the way it is. They have an increased ego and believe that they are

better than anyone else. They had to fight and assert their authority and mostly manage their

firm in an authoritarian and paternalistic way. This results in distrust and a meticulous

inspection of anyone who wants to become involved in their business, including consultants.

Family business leader 3 also imagines this to be a difficulty for consultants to permanently

have someone controlling their work, also in terms of cost. Pioneers usually do not accept

other ways of conducting business. Consultant 3 has experienced one father who had his way

of conducting business in an authoritarian way and could not accept that his son preferred to

manage and lead the firm in an opinion-forming approach, taking into account the views and

opinions of the employees. The consultant resigned the mandate after a while. Consultant 3

has learned from his experience and distinguishes between pioneers that are “un-consultable”

and those on whom where he thinks he can still have a positive effect. In his eyes only 30 out

of 50 family businesses belong to this category. In contrast to non-family businesses the

psyche plays a big role, which makes working with family businesses unique.

Moreover, consultant 1 states that the pioneer is normally the only person who takes

decisions. The other employees usually refrain from decision-making. Family business leader

2 states that his father still was seen as the patron, even though he was not the founder, and

seemed somewhat unapproachable to the employees. Those circumstances caused the

communication between him and the employees to be rather poor. For this reason he he

brought in an external consultant as an intermediary to communicate between the

management and the employees. According to consultant 2 another reason why family

businesses are reluctant towards consultants is due to the loyalty towards their first advisor

who has effectively navigated the firm for years. However, in view of the firms fast growth

56

and the changing times in the respective industry, this advisor is meanwhile understandably

overcharged. Consultant 2 realized that if the personal relatedness plays an essential role

people are inclined to disregard inaccuracies and possibly compromise their standards,

entailing certain obvious risks. Furthermore, an old advisor may be overwhelmed by the

increasingly complex fiscal and law related issues, which can result in danger for the

company. Trying to integrate him in the new consultancy can cause precarious conflicts as he

may want to retain the former business practices and may resist new and more modern

approaches. This can cause a competitive conflict amongst the two consultants, and the

business owner might find himself in a severe conflict between loyalty and economic

viability. Consultant 2 has ascertained that the pioneer who has built up the entire firm mostly

has a healthy self-confidence since he successfully overcame many obstacles and risks. That

might make him sceptical and also rather reluctant towards consultants, particularly towards

younger consultants coming straight from university that have not yet had the possibility of

gaining expertise. For business leader 3, engaging young consultants for business issues is

out of the question.

All three consultants share the view that the initial scepticism can be decreased through

building trust. Consultant 3 experiences this as a long and intense task. The way he achieves

mutual trust is by giving speeches, being president of a family business network, organizing

congresses and having a large network. He participates in social media, however, that is not

the platform where the family business owners seek their advisors. They trust and rely on

word-to-mouth recommendations. Another challenge mentioned by family business leader 2

is that he, whenever possible, gathers all the required information in order to solve conflicts

or problems himself. After the succession he used to ask his father for advice, but soon he

assumed all the responsibility himself and today, he no longer has the wish or need to seek

outside guidance. Only if faced with an unimaginable and challenging issue, would he

consider employing an advisor.

Consultant 2 confirms this statement and says that he has oftentimes found family

business owners trying to solve all the conflicts without external support to avoid the

incurring costs. Family business owners often have to be distressed to bring in an expert. He

believes that there are more SMEs without advisors than with. According to consultant 2

after the financial crises family businesses are especially sceptical towards consultants and

believe they can overcome their issues by themselves and at significantly lower costs. The

57

cost issue can cause the family business to bring in a consultant only at a very late point in

time, sometimes too late, according to consultant 2. Especially pioneers are known for

waiting as long as possible. Consultant 2 mentions one further worry of family business

leaders, namely that consultants would require too much of their time to analyse the problem

while the firm is running losses. Leader 3 says that if the management realizes to soon be

confronted with difficult times, consequently the analysis already has been done and a

business consultant cannot be of further use. External consultants can only achieve

improvements, if they are experts in their fields. Family business leader 1 follows the

approach of proactively bringing in experts into the management in order to be two steps

ahead of their competitors, which he sees as the duty of a CEO. However, if the CEO is still

working as a craftsman for instance, there is an imminent risk of waiting too long to seek

consulting, as the managerial skills are not sufficiently developed. Family business leader 1,

however, has observed a professionalization in this field regarding firms with more than 10

employees, i.e. entrepreneurs or successors further educate themselves which has helped

improve the situation. It remains a problem though in firms with not more than 5 to 10

employees. Consultant 1 states that in terms of timing, there cannot be any generalization

made. Some come very early when they see that the markets are changing and that they need

to re-position themselves, while others only start acting when they find themselves in a credit

workout and the bank forces them to get an expert on board. A further challenge that is linked

to the costs is the implementation phase. Consultant 3 describes the ideal situation as creating

a strategy project that is followed by the action plan including monthly meetings to regularly

monitor the progress. A good consultant should support also the implementation, which

naturally incurs further costs. And as family businesses are sensitive to expenses, the

consultant does not always have the possibility to accompany the realization. Also consultant

1 knows that strategic advice has an incrementally higher benefit in the beginning, and that

during the execution phase, nothing new is being introduced and therefore, family businesses

often disclaim the benefit of the consultant in that later period. Family business leader 3 sees

the issue of implementation in a yet other way. Many experts know how to improve an

existing system in theory. He had brought in a logistics expert to improve the firm’s

efficiency. After analysing the main problems, the advisor suggested a new system. He did

not, however, take into account the numerous aspects that would be affected and the

unfavourable spin-offs of such a change. Coming up with new ways of designing certain

58

processes is simple, what is challenging is the implementation throughout the entire value

chain and through all of the subsidiaries, which most consultants do not know enough about.

Another challenge is the rather closed information policy according to consultant 3.

However, he wants to emphasize that no preconceptions should be made, when he says that

family businesses are reluctant to reveal information. He experienced that whatever

information the consultant truly requires to fulfil his job, the family businesses are willing to

share. Also according to consultant 2 family businesses know that the consultant will need

firm knowledge in order to answer certain questions. Family business leader 1 follows the

principle of proportionality. The consultant gets insights in all for him relevant fields or else

he could not be able to meet his goal, however, confidentiality on behalf of the consultant is

important. Family business leader 2 notes that during the consulting sessions it was striking

to see how the employees increasingly opened towards the consultant and the entire

implemented change. In the business 3 however, there is no consultant who has insight in the

entire firm structure. The consultants, respectively members of the board have access to all

for them relevant matters, however, not more. Consultant 2 mentioned a further challenge.

He often experienced that family businesses believe that only tackling legal or operational

matter can solve an issue. In fact, those often are minor issues or side effects of the main

problem. The social and human components play a more essential part and can cause the

most difficult conflicts. Those aspects are hard to consult but it is important to bring them

forward. That is the reason why he thinks that certain people are working in this field while

others keep away, as they do not bring the skills with them to detect undisclosed or concealed

family orientated difficulties. Social and human issues seldom get taken to the next level by

the business consultant, but rather by family coaches or mediators, given the family’s

approval. Also in this regard, consultant 2 emphasizes that each business has its own

characteristics and should be treated as an independent person respectively entity. One aspect

that is important to consultant 3, and was also touched on by all of the interviewees, is that

the family business as such does not exist. In order to understand family businesses, different

aspects need to be taken into account such as size of the company, the generation, the

developmental phase the firm in is, or the involvement of the family members. According to

consultant 2 consequently the typical consulting profile does not exist either.

59

4.6 Observations – Requirements for the Consultants

Summarized, the abilities and skills that family businesses require from consultants are

the following: pleasure working with people, understanding the corporate culture, treating

each family business individually (said this already in a previous summary), adaptability

towards the needs and wishes of family businesses, honesty towards the family businesses,

and a great amount of experience.

Consultant 2 says that having pleasure and delight in working together with people is a

necessity when being a family business advisor. The person has to be able to engage himself

in mandates that go beyond technical and logistical knowhow, and also to effectively deal in

personal relationships. The consultant needs to feel comfortable in the environment and has

to understand a firm’s language, which includes the recognition of problems that may

initially be concealed. The understanding of the company’s philosophy and that the business

is vivid with organic structures is crucial. The family members are guided by that

fundamental philosophy, also reflecting itself with whom they employ. Family businesses

usually have clear values that have to be respected and understood by a consultant, otherwise

the communication and effectiveness of the consultation will yield little return. A family

business can be seen, as a reflection, mirroring the person in charge. Consulting family

businesses might involve private activities such as visiting a concert and talking about things

unrelated to work. The chemical balance and mutual comfort level simply needs to be right.

Though important also in publicly run companies, the depth and sensitivity with

consulting family businesses may be yet more demanding. A deep understanding of not just

the business and market, but also the internal family dynamics, including the internal

relationships, is required. Therefore, according to business leader 3, consulting family

businesses requires spending a lot of time in the firm to gain this profound understanding.

Consultant 2 continues that this is the only way consultants can advise appropriately and in

an effective and sustainable manner. Family business leader 2 shares this opinion and thinks

that knowledge and understanding of human nature are essential, especially when dealing

with pioneers, which he sees as a challenging task. The pioneers’ nature is characterized by

their work that they have been doing already for many years. Consultants therefore have to be

able to meet a wide range of unique people. Oftentimes, there needs to be a link or mediator

60

between the pioneers and the employees. Therefore, understanding both sides and being able

to bring them together is a required skill consultants must command.

Another important aspect that every interviewee has mentioned is the ability to adapt.

Family business leaders 2 and 3 have experienced several consultants who tried to solve an

issue with a standard approach. They claimed it was customized to the firm, however that

was clearly not the case. Leaders 2 and 3 see it therefore as a requirement for consultants to

individually think their way into each and every business when the field concerns

organisational processes, firm culture or something alike. Family business owner 2 mentions

that a “Tool-Cockpit”, a standard program, might work for some firms, however, certainly

not for all, as again, every family business is individually unique. When advice is addressed

to financial matters, the know-how and comprehension is the essence and the personality of

the consultant becomes subordinate. Family business owner 2 further states that many

pioneers are not power point presentation-oriented, they want to see simple concrete concepts

or solutions that make sense to them. According to consultant 3, advisors have to be sensitive

to realize what are precisely the pressing problems. There is often a clash concerning the

prioritization of problem solving between the consultant and the company owner. Business

owners usually want to start tackling what they perceive as the important matters but what

oftentimes seems trivial to the consultant, as the truly urgent matters should obviously have

priority. If he recommends making a production site analysis, the owner might say that this is

unnecessary as he knows his firm well enough. If the consultant insists, the two parties may

be far away from reaching a consensus. The approach the consultant should take is to discuss

the situation with the owner and trying to understand, what direction the firm heading in.

The presentation and packaging of such an analysis and the entire approach, needs to be

appropriately adapted in order to make it more comprehensible for the owner. Business

leader 3 would expect a consultant to communicate openly when he perceives the attempt of

a turnaround as too late. According to consultant 3 there are many bad advisors who try to

make the problem fit into their solution scheme. He further notes that many consultants of

large consulting companies must not necessarily be good family business consultants, as they

usually deal with more technical matters, such as operations and strategies. Family business

advisors however, having to deal with pioneers, their wives and children, the investors and

relatives, and who, in addition, all have to approve of the consultant. Therefore, it is seen as

61

an advantage for a consultant to have greying hair and broad experience, something which is

immensely important to family business owners.

62

5 Discussion

5.1 Differences between family businesses and non-family businesses in

the context of Consulting

Coming back to the research question stating, “in the context of consulting, what

aspects should be considered by external business consultants to adequately adapt to the

differences between family owned and publicly owned businesses?” the first step in order to

come up with an answer should be to identify the most striking and crucial differences. As,

Upton, Vinton, Seaman, & Moore, (1993) have ascertained, consulting with a family firm

differs from consulting with a non-family firm. Something makes the family firm consulting

experience different (p. 305). Simon and Groth (2006) have identified three generic

distinctions, or so-called paradoxes, that reveal the differences between family businesses

and non-family businesses. They have been discussed in the theoretical background in more

detail, however, recapitulated they are the following:

Paradox 1: The family of a family firm is a unique resource and simultaneously a thread

towards the business.

Paradox 2: A member of a family firm must be loyal towards its own core family, at the

same time however, towards the firm’s residual stakeholders.

Paradox 3: Decisions of a family business must comply with the equality expectations of the

family, as also the equality requirements of the business (in von Schlippe, Nischak, &

Hachimi, 2008, p. 35).

Landsberg (1983) has identified four main and precise differentiations.

(1) While family systems are fundamentally emotional systems in which membership is

given, publicly owned businesses are mainly rational systems in which membership is

designated.

(2) Family systems tend to be oriented inwardly, wanting to nurture, develop, and protect the

members, whereas business systems are predominantly oriented toward attaining a profitable

adaptation in the market.

63

(3) While family members usually behave in the light of the norms of loyalty and reciprocity,

people in business systems behave in terms of delivering the goods and services that the

business produces.

(4) Family systems tend to actively resist change in order to perpetuate a sense of safety and

security for their members, whereas business systems more readily recognize change as an

opportunity for growth and advancement (in Swartz, 1989, p. 331).

In a survey conducted in 1990, Upton asked respondents to describe the three most

important ways in which consulting family businesses differs from non-family businesses.

Two family business leaders answered that they underestimated the conflict potential, which

is also the number one answer in the survey. One leader emphasized his challenge when he

was the successor, that he had to make difficult decisions, especially in personnel matters,

that he had to take without any support from his father. Consultants may view conflict and

emotions as the norm, however, family members may not be aware of conflict until they are

actually operating in the business (Upton, Vinton, Seaman, & Moore, 1993, p. 305).

The second frequent response was that family firm consulting is more personal than

other consulting (p. 306). The family business leaders agreed to some extent with this

statement by saying that the chemistry is very important to them, most probably more than

for non-family business managers. One consultant stated that advising family businesses

works well beyond technical issues, to a large degree it is about establishing personal

relationships and trust. Therefore, according to one leader, person-related consulting requires

more time. The consultants have to become acquainted with the firm’s structure and language,

which is a lengthy process also due to the initial scepticism coming from the side of the

businesses.

The third most often cited way in which consulting differs according to Upton’s study

involves the balance between family and business concerns (p. 306). Issues such as the non-

acceptance of the pioneer towards the successor’s leadership style, as one consultant

experienced, are included. Or the circumstances, when the family business leader does not

have the qualifications to assume managerial tasks, and suddenly survival of the company is

threatened.

The Three-Circle Model highlights in theory the characteristics of the family

businesses. It attempts to identify roles, functions and responsibilities for those who find

64

themselves in one or all three circles. One consultant explained the complexity family

businesses have to deal with by drafting a systems model, however, in more detail

comprising seven circles, all demanding a stake of the firm (see figure 5). According to him,

satisfying every party involved is hardly feasible. Compared to a non-family business, where

there are usually the shareholders, the group management, often comprising the most

influential shareholders, and the board of directors, or in other words, three circles that are

much less attached to the business, a family business clearly has a higher conflict potential

and operates in more complex spheres.

5.2 Difficulties and Challenges Consulting Family Businesses

Considering the above-mentioned aspects, it is apparent that many of these differences

translate into difficulties and challenges in the context of consulting. As Deissler (2006)

states, family business consulting represents a new challenge. On the one hand consulting

Figure 5: Comparison of a family business system and a non-family system model, revealing the increased complexity (own contribution according to one Consultant)

65

activities are being questioned and criticized in terms of efficiency, respectively cost-benefit

ratio, particularly after the recent financial crises. On the other hand family businesses have

attracted the interest of many kinds of experts, such as economists, lawyers, tax experts,

organisation theorists and advisors, family therapists and politicians (p. 1).

Breaking down the increased complexity, or in other words the overlap of the three

dimensions, reveals a large number of conflicts of interest. One aspect derived from this

complexity is the problematic nature of having investors or owners, not operating in the

business, as one consultant has stated. An investor’s priority is a high return on investment,

whereas business leaders are striving for reinvesting financial means in order to grow and

further develop. However, difficulties for consultants can also occur if the owner and leader

is the same person, as according to him costs are one of the main reasons for family

businesses to eschew or prolong engaging consulting. Another conflict coming from

employees who are not members of the family is the issue of nepotism, that is favoritism

granted to relatives or friends regardless of merit. One family business leader solved this

problem of potentially having been perceived as favoured, by first attaining a university

degree and then working in another company as a CEO, before entering his own family

business. The Three-Circle Model furthermore unveils the issue of Bivalent Attributes,

defined by Tagiuri and Davis (1996) that are listed in table 2, where each key inherent

attribute is a source of benefits and disadvantages for owning families, non-family employees,

and family employees (p. 200).

66

Table 2: Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm (Tagiuri, & Davis, 1996, p. 207)

The interview partners elaborated on several of these disadvantages. One consultant

talked about the danger of simultaneous roles; in particular of not letting go of the old and

loyal adviser, causing a lack of business objectivity that can have severe consequences for the

development of the business. Aronoff and Ward (1994) came up with ten common attitudes

that keep business owners from getting the advice they need, several coinciding the table of

bivalent attributes. They have recognized this attitude being the problem of many leaders

tending to stick with their long time advisors whom they may have outgrown. If business

owners demanded as much from their professional advisors as they do from their employees

and themselves, businesses were likely to run with less effort, more profit, and in less

67

isolation (Aronoff, & Ward, 1994, p. 15). One consultant touched on the issue of lifelong

common history. He talked about the challenge of finding the right successor. According to

the family logics, the son as the closest relative should be the first to come. However, in the

eyes of the father he might not be the most suited person and choosing someone else could

cause deep and lasting disappointments hurting their father-son relationship irreversibly.

A family business leader referred to a related issue of private language that prevented

his father from communicating satisfactorily with the employees. He tried to solve this

problem by bringing in an advisor, who assumed a rather mediating function. However,

according to a consultant, oftentimes there is no mediator in place and communication

remains poor where the employees, including the young graduates, are not encouraged to

advocate their views causing the company to suffer from missed interactions and valuable

inputs. Change suggested from younger generation is not perceived as positive by the pioneer,

but disrespectful (Vago, 1995, p. 318). Generally, pioneers seem to want no more assistance

from a board than formal approval. Neither do they want opinions, which are more diverse

than those provided by subordinate family members or close advisers who can be trusted to

raise no fundamental questions about the direction in which the founder is taking the business

(p. 318).

Generally, most of the interview partners commented on the major struggle of coping

with the pioneer – an extremely special and unpredictable character, by one consultant even

described as people with a psychological damage. Wimmer, Domayer, Oswald and Vater

(2005) confirm this statement to some extent. What holds for the pioneer, must not

necessarily hold for the others. “The man of the World” who wants to restrain and control the

challenging and adversarial environment is the only one to cross the limits. Others are not

allowed, and not capable either in his eyes (pp. 203-204).

These challenges represent only a small fraction of difficulties related to family

businesses. Trying to bundle and prioritize them in order to come up with the most typical

family business challenges would mean arriving at wrong conclusions. Family businesses

perceive their own firm as unique and very complex and believe that consultants could

understand the deep structure only if they spent between 4 and 6 months working in the

business. “An advisor could never understand my business” is one attribute identified by

Aronoff and Ward (1994, p. 14). Many family business leaders think that in the time an

68

advisor would need to understand their unique business situation, they could have solved it

themselves, again, constituting a further challenging aspect. The compulsion of wanting to

solve problems without external help is a well-known trait of pioneers. Therefore, keeping

these points in mind and concluding this issue of manifold complexities and difficulties, it

has become apparent in the conduct of interviews and the literature review that probably the

most demanding difficulty is in fact that each and every business is unique in itself.

5.3 Typical Consulting Fields Being aware of this ambiguous diversity of family businesses, and understanding that

the family business does not exist, which might in fact explain why to date there is no

universal definition of a family business, and may not also in the future, means that it makes

little sense trying to identify the typical consulting fields. Too much do the fields depend on

the individual nature of the business and family. Aspects such as what generation the firm is

in, their core competences, their size, their previously gained experience, their financial

means, and many more determine or rather indicate what kind of advice a family firm may

require. After having asked one advisor the question of what consulting areas get most

attention, he firstly placed importance on defining the word “consultant”. According to him,

there are four groups of consultants.

(1) The first group are the financial advisors or the accountants, who usually are close to the

firm, respectively the leader and have access to the books and all trusted information.

(2) The second group consists of the lawyers and tax experts, who are in charge of mainly

contractual legal issues.

(3) Then there are the management consultants, who are in charge of improving the

efficiency, structures, and strategic development with the business.

(4) And fourthly, there are consultants, or more accurately, coaches or mediators who focus

on familiar issues, developing and clarifying the values of a family, the family board or

elaborate on visions and goals. Therefore, inquiring about the typical consulting fields,

presupposes a specification of what consultant type is meant.

However, having interviewed consultants and family businesses of different fields,

there was no consensus on one particular topic, but there was on the generic reasoning why

consultants are being brought into a firm, namely due to a lack of knowledge in a specific

69

area. This lack can have a broad range of sources, varying from quality certifications, tax

issues, organizational matters, firm culture, to succession planning.

Succession is an interesting, complex and biased issue. Opinions on the importance of

succession vary. A few interviewees stated that succession planning is usually done once in a

business leader’s life and besides that, every business is faced with the issue of the firm’s

continuity. Other interview partners thought that passing the baton is a difficult topic

entailing many issues that could detrimentally effect the family harmony. According to

Aronoff (1998) in large-scale research when attempting to find correlations between various

family business factors and multigenerational survival, succession planning is shown as

statistically insignificant. Whereas, strategic planning, an active board of directors, and

regular family meetings, do have significant correlations with success in passing the firm

from one generation to the next. It may have something to do with the notion of succession.

Many think leaders in the field, such as Gersick, have started to refer to generational

transitions recognizing the importance of not solely executive leadership, but of including

family and shareholder leadership as well, reaching at a new level of stakeholder involvement

(p. 181). According to Zahra and Sharma (2004) leadership succession is one of the toughest

tasks in an organizational life as it tests the mettle of the firm by bringing forth the complex

relationship issues that many have laying dormant in the everyday operations of the business

(p. 334) – describing exactly the problem a business leader was faced with. Succession and

the above mentioned issues are undeniably difficult matters to consult and need a deep and

broad understanding of family businesses. As stated by a consultant who has often

experienced family business leaders bringing in a consultant for one particular issue.

In the process of learning about the business and the family, however, it became more

and more obvious that what was perceived as the problem by the leader, was merely a result

or symptom of the actual underlying problem. The business leader may know about the

actual issue but wants to prevent advisors from raising unanswerable questions or threating

the personal confidence or control (Aronoff , & Ward, 1994, p. 15). However, the business

leader may not consciously know about the undisclosed problem. According to Vago (1995)

many of the differences and difficulties that come between people are about matters

operating outside of their awareness, which increases the negative impact of such influences,

that is, if the problem cannot correctly be identified, they cannot effectively solve it (p. 315).

70

One interviewed consultant appreciates being one eye level with the business leader,

which may result in prompt decision-making. He is seen as an expert of organizational

matters and consults companies with assertiveness self-confidence. Deissler (2006) coming

from the previously defined fourth category, family therapy and coaching, chooses a very

different approach, however, reaching at a similar goal.

According to Deissler, a controversial issue that consultants constantly face has to do

with the handling of the consultation expertise. Questions need to be clarified such as what

objectives will be defined, what type of communication will be used, who will participle in

the sessions, and who will be in charge for the sustainability of the consultation. Those

questions make it clear that the form and content of the consultation are in the forefront,

while the consultant takes a serving role. The consultant is the expert of the consulting

process, while the client is the contentual expert, meaning, it is him determining the agenda.

This approach creates a good, trusting and creative atmosphere, enables a mutual

learning experience, resulting with the consultant and the client meeting at eye level and

increases the chances of reaching the set goals – which might include the above mentioned

issue, namely also resolving concealed issues that consultants prefer not to tackle with (pp.

36-38).

Dealing with severe family issues that are deeply buried or unknowingly to family

members, however, still impacting the family business as a whole, may need a yet more

personal and deep approach. “Deconstructing” is what Deissler (2006) calls the process of

trying to endorse new views and meanings, used as a form of analysis in order to unveil

objective facts and truths, and bringing unconscious matters within the awareness. Through

the process of deconstructing, new and multiple ways of understanding should be achieved

that allow for new possibilities to act in terms of relationships. Past events having shaped a

personality might come up, explaining certain traits such as fear or guilt (pp. 38-39).

Patient and insightful reflexion of this kind might eventually teach people, in particular

the founders, that they are – naturally – limited and that they need advice about matters

beyond the scope of their own knowledge (Deissler, 2006, p. 39; Alderfer, 1988, p. 249).

However, seeing the subject matter from the pioneer’s perspective might help to

understand their reluctance and scepticism towards any external person that claims to be able

to help the business. What a pioneer has accomplished represents an indispensable lifework,

71

an identity, the source of financial security for himself and his loved ones. This commitment

towards the firm brings many challenges along, like several mentioned above.

Yet, many family businesses have fortunately realized that every business leader needs

help from time to time. Good consultants can assist by drawing on their experience with

many family businesses and can help solve problems and resolve conflicts (Aronoff, & Ward,

2011, p. 1). That is a step in the right direction, however, in the first phase inhibitions and

doubts usually persist towards consultants - a challenge that consultants must meet in order to

survive.

5.4 Inhibitions and Doubts for bringing in a Consultant Due to the complexity and the difficulties with which family businesses are faced,

inhibitions towards consultants are understandable. Consultants not being able to have an

effect when not acting from inside the firm, the feeling that a consultant will never

understand the firm deep enough, or that consultants use a standard problem solving

procedure are common perceptions of family businesses. Most consultants, including those

interviewed, are aware of those negative views and know what it takes – trust, a competitive

advantage of family businesses compared to most non-family businesses. When a family

permits unresolved or recurring conflicts to diminish communication and trust in the family,

it becomes difficult for family members to share ideas, discuss issues or make right decisions

(Carlock, & Ward, 2001, p. 4). The willingness to risk vulnerability and rely on another

person is rare in today’s profit-driven world. Therefore, having achieved a foundation of trust

can make it a unique competitive advantage for family firms (p. 11). Family members must

furthermore place a degree of trust in the family business consultant. If trust and confidence

are lacking, the prospect of success for the proposed engagement will be undermined

drastically (Goodman, 1998, p. 350). There are different ways how to build trust. One

consultant has earned his reputation, an important predecessor of trust, by being president of

a family business network, organizing family businesses congresses, giving speeches, having

a large network, years of experience and coming from a family business himself.

72

5.5 The Family Business Consultant Once having gained trust, the research question asks for a description of how family

business consultants are supposed to cater for the special nature of family businesses.

Considering the complexity of the consulting process, it is not surprising that there is a

delicate balance between a successful and an unsuccessful family firm consulting experience

(Upton, Vinton, Seaman, & Moore, 1993, p. 306). Coming back to the Upton survey, when

asking about common mistakes made by family firm consultants, participants ranked the

inability to understand family dynamics as number one. Further errors, in rank order, are

focusing on symptoms rather than problems, being unaware of personal consulting

limitations, and not communicating appropriately with family members.

The survey moreover highlighted two problems related to the increased personal

consulting style with family businesses. Consultants oftentimes failed to recognize when

clients are reacting to the consultant as if she or he were a surrogate family member, a

phenomenon known as transference in psychotherapy. This phenomenon requires skill and

objectivity of the consultant, as client’s responses may be inappropriate and reactions strong

and negative. The second is the matter of countertransference, meaning consultants who see

their own family history being presented, and thus are over-identifying with the client.

Therefore, being a good business consultant does not necessarily mean being a good family

business consultant as dealing with personal issues may not be easy for all advisors (p. 306).

Knowing about common mistakes, ways of how not to do it, the description of a model

family business consultant is being advanced. Two requirements and expectations towards

consultants have become dominant.

(1) Firstly, family business leaders expect a great deal of experience and expertise in

the field concerned (Goodman, 1998, p. 351). Technical expertise and a disciplined drive to

stay abreast of new developments are crucial for an excellent family business consultant.

Certainly, factors such as having a family business background or “greying” hair, as

mentioned by many interviewees, are appreciated by family businesses, as they are being

perceived as indicators of experience.

An increasing number of family business consultants are becoming experts in more

than one discipline. Others have a network of professionals in different fields in order to

complement their services if needed, which was also mentioned by one consultant (Aronoff,

& Ward, 2011, pp. 20-21). A consultant noted that it is not only important for pioneers to

73

learn how to delegate tasks and share responsibilities, but also for advisors. It is essential to

know where the consultant’s expertise starts and where it ends (Kasow, 2006, p. 140). In

order to solve a complex situation, different areas might be involved, each demanding a

different consultant in order to provide excellent consultation.

(2) With experience may come a deeper understanding of the family business

complexity, which is considered to be the second requirement and of greatest importance to

family business leaders. Words such as empathy, sympathy, understanding the firm’s

language, dynamics, human values, difficult personalities, patience and building trust were

mentioned by every interviewee. Family businesses believe that their business situation is

unique and commands devotion on the part of the consultant.

According to Aronoff and Ward (2011) good consultants go well beyond answering

client’s questions or requests for meetings. They work to understand the family and the

business in depth by reading up on the company and the family, looking at meeting minutes,

histories, and will attend business or family events such as business anniversaries or family

ceremonies. Only this way can consultants gain a deeper understanding of the family’s

history, values and the culture of the business (p. 23).

Traditional consultants work in the three systems of a family business, often as if the

systems were separate and distinct from one another. Family therapists usually deal only with

the family; accountants are concerned about the business or ownership, and management

consultants work largely within the business system (Kaslow, 2006, p. 75). What

distinguishes family business consultants from non-family consultants is that they combine

in-depth technical knowledge sensitively with ongoing family needs, which in most cases is

the more challenging part (Aronoff and Ward, 2011, p. 27). Due to the mixed nature of

family businesses it makes it difficult for founders to resolve the compensation issue, for

instance, in a way consistent with both the norms of fairness that operate in the family –

based on the principle of resource allocation so that children's needs are met – and the norms

of fairness that operate in the firm - based on the concept of merit (Lansberg, 1983, pp. 42-

43). Therefore, finding solutions often results in policies that not only resolve immediate

issues but work in an overarching policy on family participation in the business that would

prevent future conflicts (Aronoff, & Ward, 2011, p. 27).

As family businesses perceive their business as unique and exceptional, family

members have learned to beware of professionals who too rapidly recommend standard wills,

74

buy-sell agreements, and other planning documents without an initial sound evaluation of

family-related issues (Goodman, 1998, p. 351). Solutions must be designed according to the

unique characteristics and potential of each individual family, was the general consensus of

all interviewees. Good advisors have to take the time to understand the deep structure of the

business, the goals, capabilities, expectations of all the family members involved and their

potential over years.

5.6 A Suggested Approach “Family firms have been described as unique, complex, and challenging social

organizations with special characteristics that should be acknowledged by members, advisers,

and researchers“ (Davis and Stern, 1988; Rosenblatt, de Mik, Anderson, and Johnson, 1985,

Ward, 1987 in Whiteside, & Brown, 1991, p. 383). Therefore, taking the individuality and

uniqueness of each and every family business into account in the consulting process is key.

Nonetheless, there are many different approaches consultants can choose. The research

question may indicate that an answer should come in form of a table, listing differences that

have to be taken into account in the context of consulting and subsequently, describing how

to adequately adjust to them. However, for comparison reasons this would require a thorough

analysis of a typical consultation procedure for non-family businesses, and most notably a

considerable amount of generalization. The author believes that it would be of higher value to

both, the family businesses and the consultants to describe a recommended consultation

approach based on the insights gained trough the literature and interviews. The approach

should incorporate and account for the reluctance of family businesses, the large complexity

and role confusion elucidated by the Three-Circle-Model, the necessary trust building phase,

the deconstructing process in order to find underlying issues to be resolved, and the

uniqueness of every family firm in terms of consulting field, goals and expectations.

The approach of Maass (2006) (in Deissler, 2006, pp. 93-97) a systemic coach

specialised on family businesses seems to have addressed and implemented most of the

criteria and challenges very well in her concrete consulting technique. However, to include

all of the aspects crucial to consulting, Maass’ approach was complemented with further

approaches by other renowned experts in the field.

75

The Initial Contact – The initial contact starts with the consultant openly answering

questions about the own personality, background and expertise in the field. For the client it is

essentially important to get to know the advisor and appraise whether a trusting relationship

could potentially be established. As Kaye and Hamilton (2004) state “Trust is not only

crucial to success among the owners of substantial wealth, it is also the sine qua non for

successful teamwork among professionals who work with them” (p. 151). The consultant

enquires about the problems within the firm in order to get the big picture and a better

understanding of the situation. Furthermore, the goals related to the consultation need to be

explicitly defined and further factors like expected timeframes for example need clarification.

The consultant provides a careful estimation of how and in what ways she can contribute to

reach a resolution (Deissler, 2006, p. 93).

Second Contact – In the second session the previously concerted objectives are

talked through to ensure the consultant has understood them correctly. This proves to be very

valuable as a comprehensible mission clarification and also a roadmap to ensure the

consultation is steering in the right and goal-oriented direction. A written specification of the

objectives already has a positive influence on the client in terms of their openness and

understanding of the problem. Aronoff and Ward (2001) believe that a good advisor should

be willing and able to explain issues in a clear and simple language in order for the client to

understand (p. 22). From a client’s perspective, circumstances may first seem chaotic and

confusing, however, seeing them through a professional’s lens can already result in some

clarification. The second meeting continues with the topic the client regards as most urgent.

A more detailed picture of the particular problem is derived by ascertaining the precedence

and indicators of the problem’s solution. Deissler (2006) is of the opinion that the consultant

should take a rather passive role when it comes to the prioritization of issues, as his skills,

experience and expertise are in the commission of the client. The client has the contextual

expertise, and thus determines what issues in what order will be discussed (p. 37), in order to

reach the desired solution.

Further course of consultation – In the further course of the consultation, the client

delves deeper into personal issues. Usually it is necessary to first talk about the problem at

hand in order to reach that personal level where the client begins to elaborate on his personal

76

development or on family relationships. The reciprocal overlap of family and business cause

those delicate issues to come up, which often cannot be discussed in the private environment

- the family or the working place (Maas, 2006, in Deissler, 2006, p. 94). The consultant-client

relationship requires ongoing management. A willingness to tackle the issues and probe for

solutions, strong communication, and high but realistic goals are nessecary for a to

sustainable and productive consultation. However, no matter how committed a consultant is,

an issue can be complex with different aspects involved. Consultants specialized in one

specific field such as law or taxation can only cover a part of the need (Aronoff, & Ward,

2001, p. 81).

According to Swartz (1989), professionals of diverse disciplines have traditionally

worked with family firms independently and only seldom have they had a chance to compare

their individual views, and form a more holistic and realistic picture of the family firm

system. Swartz believes that it is possible to create change in a family business only when

both the family and the business system are addressed directly and concurrently due to the

high degree of reciprocal interdependence. One of the significant functions of being a family

business consultant involves showing the client constructive ways of dealing with the

tensions that occur from being in a dual system. An excellent implementation of this

approach requires multidisciplinary expertise in the form of a team of consultants coming

from different backgrounds (p. 331). Consultants that have teamed up on difficult problems

are more likely to assure a certain degree of quality and yield greater returns, as the synergies

among committed professionals often generate creative ideas no one of them could have

produced alone (Aronoff, & Ward, 2001, p. 81). As each profession has developed a

language of its own, the central goal of the multidisciplinary consulting approach is to

acknowledge the differences, while simultaneously developing a common and mind-opening

perspective on the work as a multidisciplinary team (pp. 329; 334). As every approach

though, there are advantages and drawbacks. An organizational entry, a sensitive issue for

members of privately owned family firms, can be threatened by the use of a team and

furthermore, the additional incurred costs might be a further reason why family businesses

would not make use of the multidisciplinary approach (Handler, 1989, p. 269; Swartz, 1989,

p. 333). Engaging a team for sure makes sense for a large business with field-overlapping

consulting needs. However, in smaller dimensions, this is the task of a systemic expert,

contributing an important component towards the consulting landscape. According to Maass

77

(2006) systemic consultation allows for an encompassing family business therapy, which

may determine the further development of the firm (p. 95).

Goal Achievement – “The greatest determiner of successful change in a family

business is the consultants’ ability to maintain a working alliance with leaders in the client

system – and to keep moving the engagement forward step by step” (Vago, 2003 in Kaye, &

Hamilton, 2004, p. 153). This alliance and quality examination is done by regularly aligning

the status quo with the initially agreed objectives. Concrete intentions and action plans evolve

through comprehensive reflection of the coaching sessions. The process of how to implement

the intended change, usually the most difficult part, is discussed extensively and pursued by

the consultant, mostly perceived as a positive pressure and motivation by the client.

Successful achievements are of high value for the course of the consultation (Maass, 2006, in

Deissler, 2006, p. 95). According to Kaye and Hamilton (2004, p. 153) “when clients make

progress by achieving a stated objective—for example, adopt a mission statement or a set of

bylaws, resolve a family member’s desire to take his equity out of the business, agree on new

roles, hire a new CEO, or establish a family office—the consultant keeps the engine running

and ready to depart as soon as the passengers are ready for the next stage of their journey” (p.

153).

5.7 Transition to Professionalism Levinson (1983, p. 80) warns: “The consultant who enters into consultation with a

family business must recognize that he or she is entering an old battleground. What is to be

learned and dealt with is not merely a matter of contemporary differences. Many of them are

unconscious and go back for an almost literal lifetime. Understanding this ... the consultant

may be able to sustain the working relationship long enough to help solve the problems (in

Handler, 1989, p. 264).

This statement contains valuable pieces of information, particularly for readers who

have never dealt with family businesses. It points out that consulting in a family business is

not like consulting another type of organization, because the business is greatly influenced by

the history and psychosocial development of the family (Handler, 1989, p. 264). Traditionally,

family-member managers were compared and contrasted with professional, “non-family”

78

managers (Aronoff, 1998, p. 183). However, Aronoff (1998) has observed the trend that

professionalism rather than idiosyncrasy is increasingly the standard by which family

executives are judged. Family members are more and more expected to meet if not exceed

the highest levels of executive professionalism, including educational achievement and career

success experienced outside the family business (p. 183), being the case for all interviewed

family business leaders. Under today’s economic pressure having to fulfill these ambitious

expectations, family businesses have realized that “no man is wise enough by himself” and

that every business needs help from time to time (Titus Maccius Plautus, 254-184 BC, in

Aronoff, & Ward, 2011, p. 1). The above described consulting process based on Maass’

approach, aims at addressing the distinguishing aspects relevant to family businesses in the

context of consulting, and at illustrating how to best deal with them. According to Hubler

(1998, p. 187) “working with family businesses as a consultant is one of the most awesome

responsibilities I can imagine”.

79

6 Conclusion

Perceptions of family business consultation vary greatly – from awesome

responsibilities with sustainable impact to being in the middle of a battleground (Hubler,

1998, p. 187; Levinson, 1983, in Handler, 1989, p. 264). Considering such greatly opposing

statements from two family businesses experts may indicate that the core matter, the family

business, is as different and opposing in itself. Indeed, having understood and realized the

complexity and uniqueness of those organizations, it seems obvious that conventional

business consultation could never live up to the expectations and intricacy that family

business leaders face. The aim of this thesis is to reveal aspects that are relevant in the

context of consulting and find ways of how to adequately adapt them to the special

characteristics of family businesses.

Reading literature and studying theoretical models gave the author valuable and

interesting, but sometimes also contradictory insights on this topic. The Three-Circle Model

has explained the complexity within a system, where three fundamentally different

subsystems interact. Habbershon, Williams and MacMillan (2003) find the model useful in

identifying the component parts and constituencies of the family business system, and for

describing complex organizational phenomena. However, the approach is not particularly

useful for identifying the positive systemic synergy from the interaction of the family and

business in a system (p. 8). Therefore, the concept of “familiness”, defined by Habbershon

and Williams as the unique bundle of resources resulting from the interaction of family and

firm, was introduced to offset the prevailing negative perspective and to give a more

comprehensive picture of family businesses. Habbershon, Williams and MacMillan (2003)

also have criticized the overlapping circle model for inherently picturing a static degree of

interaction between the family and business (p. 8). Gersick, Davis, Hampton, & Lansberg

(1997) further developed and transformed the three-circle concept into a developmental

model in which each of the three sub-systems moves through a sequence of stages over time

(in Gersick, Lansberg, Desjardings, & Dunn, 1999, p. 287).

The theoretically gained insights of family businesses together with the expert

interviews built the foundation for the emergence of an answer to the research question,

80

asking what aspects should be considered by external business consultants to adequately

adapt to the differences between family owned and publicly owned businesses?”

The concluding and concise answer is that one aspect profoundly needs to be taken into

account when consulting family businesses - the aspect of uniqueness. Consulting a complex

construct such as a family business, needs to incorporate many factors that all depend on the

specific business, which again heavily depends on the history and psychosocial development

of the family (Handler, 1989, p. 264).

Systematically incorporating these factors, will confidently lead the consultation

towards the adapted, customized and desired direction. Of course, the consultant must have a

set of capabilities in order to reach this achievement. A delight in working with different

personalities, a good reputation in the field, a high degree of empathy and foremost, a deep

and experienced family business understanding are crucial attributes for a family business

consultant.

As family businesses are oftentimes faced with issues, involving different areas of

expertise, the systemic approach might lead to the most satisfying results. The system-based

consultation allows besides the business challenges, emotional and personal issues to be

discussed. This form of consultation consists of a continuous trust-building phase. Giving and

receiving feedback, among client and consultant, and consultants amongst each other,

increases the learning experience immensely. This makes it a fascinating approach for the

consultant, as there is no established procedure and the consultant gains a different view and

comprehension of every individual firm. The systemic approach appreciates the uniqueness

and distinctiveness of each human being, each relationship network and each business.

Consultants having these systemic skills and the above mentioned required abilities may

convince family business leaders to enter into a trust-building relationship that remains over

time.

The main limitation of this thesis faced the strategic sample. All three family

businesses were rather large and successful SMEs that have mainly acquired consultation in

specific areas. Therefore, their experience with field-overarching consultation, including

particularly family-related issues was limited. The two most important parties in family

business consulting were included in the sample, which allowed receiving valuable insight,

yet, the outcomes are based on theory and six interviews. Drawn generalizations from this

81

thesis would therefore not hold. The matter of generalization however, is an aspect that could

further be researched on in order to provide clearer guidelines to consultants. The family

related systemic approach for businesses is still in its infancy but has great potential in the

author’s opinion. Therefore, experimenting and developing this approach might contribute

the advancement of an optimal family business consultation, adding value to both family

businesses and consultants.

82

7 Recommendations

- More research in the field of systemic consultation

- Assess the significane of a family governance

- Finding differences in terms of involvement of family members in operative / strategic

level in the company

- What owner strategy is most suitable to avoid conflicts

- Finding approaches that decrease the reluctance of family businesses towards consultation

83

8 References

Alderfer, C. (1988). Understanding and Consulting to Family Business Boards. Family Business Review, 1(3), 249-261. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/1/3/249

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Approaches to Interviewing. Interviewing for social scientists: an introductory resource with examples (pp. 74-88). London: Sage Publications.

Aronoff, C. E. (1998). Megatrends in Family Business. Family Business Review, 11(3), 181-185. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/11/3/181

Aronoff, C. E., & Ward, J. L. (2011). How to choose & use advisors: getting the best professional family business advice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Astrachan, J., Klein, S., & Smyrnios, K. (2002). The F-PEC Scale of Family Influence: A Proposal for Solving the Family Business Definition: Problem1. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45-58. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/15/1/45

Bateson, G., & Holl, G. (1983). OÌˆkologie des Geistes (5. Aufl. ed.). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. (2002). Family Business Research: The Evolution of an Academic Field. Family Business Review, 15(4), 337-350. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/4/337

Braun, B. (2009). Erfolgreich jenseits der Börse. Was führende Familienunternehmen auszeichnet. Zürich: Orell Füssli.

Carlock, R., & Ward, J. (2011). When Family Businesses Are Best: The Parallel Planning Process for Family Harmony and Business Success. Houndsmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan.. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Caspar, C., Dias, A., & Elstrodt, H. (2010, January). The five attributes of enduring family businesses. McKinsey Quarterly, 1. Retrieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Private%20Equity/PDFs/774897_The_five_attributes_of_enduring_family_businesses.aspx

Chrisman, J., Chua, J., & Steiner, L. (2005, May). Sources and Consequences of Distinctive Familiness: An Introduction. Entrepreneurship Theory&Practice, 1, 237-247.

Craig, C., & Ward, J. (1995). Family-Owned Businesses: A Thing of the Past or a Model for the Future. Family Business Review, 8(2), 121-130.

Dahinden, U., Sturzenegger, S., & Neuroni, A. C. (2006). Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (1. Aufl. ed.). Bern; Stuttgart : Haupt.

Davis, P., & Stern, D. (1980). Adaptation, Survival, and Growth of the Family Business: An Inte- grated Systems Perspective. Human Relations, 34(4), 207-224.

Deissler, K. G. (2006). Systemische Beratung von Familienunternehmen - ein Erfahrungsbericht. Familienunternehmen beraten: Positionen und Praxisbeispiele.

84

Bielefeld: Transcript. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Donnelley, R. (1988). The Family Business. Family Business Review, 1(4), 427-445.

Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/1/4/427.full.pdf+html

Fopp, L., Herger, H., Giger, A., Tiberini, F. M., Schwartzkopff, W., & ZenhÃ¤usern, M. (2010, December). 2020 - Die Zukunft des Familienunternehmens. FBN-Trendstudie, 1, 1-75.

Gersick, K., Lansberg, I., Desjardins, M., & Dunn, B. (1999). Stages and Transitions: Managing Change in the Family Business. Family Business Review, 12(4), 287-297. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/12/4/287.citation

Gersick, K. E. (1997). Generation to generation: Life Cycles of the Family Business. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.

Gimeno, A., Baulenas, G., & Cros, J. (2010). Familienunternehmen fuÌˆhren - KomplexitaÌˆt managen mentale Modelle und praktische LoÌˆsungen. GoÌˆttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Goodman, J. M. (1998). Defining the New Professional: The Family Business Counselor. Family Business Review, 11(4), 349-354. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/11/4/349

Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76â€“88.

Greetham, B. (2009). How to write your undergraduate dissertation. Basingstoke [England] ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Habbershon, T., & Williams, M. (1999). A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1-22. Retrieved December 21, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/12/1/1.short

Handler, W. (1989). ethodological Issues and Considerations in Studying Family Businesses. Family Business Review, 2(3), 257-276. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/3/257

Hilb, M., HÃ¶ppner, M., Leenen, S., & MÃ¼hleback, C. (2009). Wirksame FuÌˆhrung und Aufsicht von Familienunternehmen (1. Aufl. ed.). Bern: Haupt.

Hoffman, J., Hoelscher, M., & Sorenson, R. (2006). Achieving Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Family Capital Theory. Family Business Review, 19(2), 135-145. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/19/2/135

Kaslow, F. W. (2006). Handbook of family business and family business consultation: a global perspective. Binghamton, N.Y.: International Business Press.

Kaye, K., & Hamilton, S. (2004). Roles of Trust in Consulting to Financial Families. Family Business Review, 17(2), 151-163.

Kepner, E. (1983). The family and the firm: A coevolutionary perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 57-70.

King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research . London: SAGE.

85

Klein, S. B. (2010). Familienunternehmen: Theoretische und empirische Grundlagen (3. Aufl. ed.). Lohmar: Eul Verlag.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Lansberg, I. (1988). The succession conspiracy. Family Business Review, 1(2), 119â€“143. Lansberg, I. (1983). Managing Human Resources in Family Firms: The Problem of

Institutional Overlap. Organizational Dynamics, 1, 39-46. Lee, M., & Rogoff, E. G. (1996). Research Note: Comparison of Small Businesses with

Family Participation versus Small Businesses Without Family Participation: An Investigation of Differences in Goals, Attitudes, and Family/Business Conflict. Family Business Review, 9(4), 423-237. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/9/4/423

Levinson, H. (1983). Consulting with the Family Business: What to Look For, What to Look Out For. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 71-80.

Boston, Ma. Levring, R., & Moskowitz, M. (1993). The ten best companies to work for in America.

Business and Society Review, 85(1), 26-38. Maass, I. (2006). Systemische Beratung von Familienunternehmen – ein Erfahungsbericht. In

Deissler (Eds.), Familienunternehmen beraten. Positionen und Praxisbeispiele (pp. 87-97). Bielefeld: Transcript.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousands Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

May, P., & Fueglistaller, U. (2010). Schweizer Standards : aus bester Familie: 100 vorbildliche Schweizer Familienunternehmen (1. Auflage, Ausgabe 2010. ed.). Zürich: Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Moores, K. (2009). Paradigms and Theory Building in the Domain of Business Families. Family Business Review, 22(2), 167-180. Retrieved November 21, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/22/2/167

Moscatello, L. (1990). The Pitcairns Want You!. Family Owned Business Institute, 2(2), 58- 64.

Murray, B., & McCracken, K. (2000, June). What Makes Family Businesses Different. Family Business Solution, 1, 1-8. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://www.2mmanagementconsultancy.com/FBS/imagess/WhatmakesFBsdifferent.pdf)

Mühlebach, C. (2005). Familyness as a competitive advantage (1. Aufl. ed.). Bern: P. Haupt. O’Driscoll, M., Ilgen, D., & Hildreth, K. (1992). Time devoted to job and off-job activities,

interrole conflict, and affective experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 272â€“279.

Poutziouris, P., Smyrnios, K., & Klein, S. (2006). Handbook of research on family business . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far?. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.

86

Rosenblatt, P., Mik, L. d., Anderson, R., & Johnson, P. (1985). The Family in Business: Understanding and Dealing with the Challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data (2. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Rutherford, M., Muse, L., & Oswald, S. (2006). A New Perspective on the Developmental Model for Family Business. Family Business Review, 19(4), 317-333. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/19/4/317

Schlippe, A. v., Nischak, A., & Hachimi, M. E. (2008). Familienunternehmen verstehen: Gründer, Gesellschafter und Generationen (1. Aufl. ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Shanker, M., & Astrachan, J. (1996). Myths and Realities: Family Businesses' Contribution to the US Economy âˆ’âˆ’ A Framework for Assessing Family Business Statistics. Family Business Review, 9(2), 107-123. Retrieved May 6, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/107

Sharma, P. (2004). An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1-36. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/17/1/1

Simon, F. B., Wimmer, R., & Groth, T. (2005). Mehr-Generationen-Familienunternehmen Erfolgsgeheimnisse von Oetker, Merck, Haniel u.a. (1. Aufl. ed.). Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Verl..

Spoehr, J. (2005, May). Towards an understanding of the significance of family business closures in South Australia. Australian Institute for Social Research, 1. Retrieved May 5, 2011, from www.sapo.org

Stryker, S. (1957). Role taking accuracy and adjustment. Sociometry, 20(4), 286-296. Swartz, S. (1989). The Challenges of Multidisciplinary Consulting to Family-Owned

Businesses. Family Business Review, 2(4), 329-331. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/2/4/329

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1982). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review, 5(1), 43-62. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/5/1/43

Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent Attributes of the Family Firm. Family Business Review, 9(2), 199-208. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/199

Trochim, W. M. (2006, October 20). Deduction & Induction. Social Research Methods. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php

Upton, N., Vinton, K., Seaman, S., & Moore, C. (1993). Research Note: Family Business Consultants: Who We Are, What We Do, and How We Do It. Family Business Review, 6(3), 301-311. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/6/3/301

Vago, M. (1995). Why Fish Must Learn to See the Water They Swim In. Family Business Review, 8(4), 313-325. Retrieved December 30, 2010, from

87

http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/8/4/313 Vago, M. (2003).“Outside” executives: coming in from the cold. Presented at “Proceedings,”

Annual Conference of the Family Firm Institute. Boston, MA. Vago, M. (2004). Integrated Change Management©: Challenges for Family Business Clients

and Consultants. Family Business Review, 17(1), 71-80. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/17/1/71

Ward, J. (1997). Growing the Family Business: Special Challenges and Best Practices. Family Business Review, 10(4), 323-337. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/10/4/323

Whiteside, M., & Brown, F. (1991). Drawbacks of a Dual Systems Approach to Family Firms: Can We Expand Our Thinking?. Family Business Review, 4(4), 383-395. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/content/4/4/383.abstract

Widrig, M. (2007, November 22). PwC Studie Familiy Business Survey 2007/08. PwC Studien und Publikationen, 1. Retrieved April 10, 2011, from http://www.pwc.ch/user_content/editor/files/articles/pwc_20071123_fbs_1.pdf

Wimmer, R., Groth, T., & Simon, F. B. (2004, June). Erfolgsmuster von Mehrgenerationen-Familienunternehmen. Wittener Diskussionspapiere, 2, 1-85. Retrieved October 11, 2010, from http://www.osb-i.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/RWi_Groth_Simon_Erfolgsmuster_von_Mehrgenerationen-FU_Juni_04.pdf

Wimmer, R., Domayer, E., Oswald, M., & Vater, G. (2005). Familienunternehmen - Auslaufmodell oder Erfolgstyp? (2., uÌˆberarb. Aufl. ed.). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Zahra, S., & Sharma, P. (2004). Family Business Research: A Strategic Reflection. Family Business Review, 17(4), 331-346. Retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://fbr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/331

88

Appendix A1: Interview Outline_Consultant Introduction Give a brief introduction about the company.

- What are incentives to consult family businesses? What are the reasons to focus on this special company type?

Some general questions on consulting

- What are typical consulting issues for family businesses in your experience? - In your opinion, are there any issues where family-owned companies usually do not

seek external help, but where it might be necessary or beneficial? If yes, which ones? Deciding to hire a consultant

- What are the most often required reason (challenge, topic) for family businesses to bring in a consultant?

- What makes family businesses seek external advice? Usually, how hard have they tried to solve the problem internally before getting external advice?

- Are there usually any inhibitions or doubts when involving external help at first? - Is the timing right in most of the cases? Is external advice usually seeked early enough,

or are you being hired someone at a later (too late) stage? - Whose decision is it usually to bring in a consultant?

Choosing a consultant

- What are the criteria family businesses often established when choosing the advisor? What is important to them with regard to, e.g.

o Professional experience o Character / personality traits o Personal contacts / network of the consultant

§ Was it important to you that he had already worked for other family firms, or for SME, or that he dealt with a similar problem in another company? Would you prefer someone that someone you know with has already worked with?

o Have you made the experience or could you imagine that the chosen size of the consultant company depends on the issue?

Working with a consultant

- How open did you perceive the Family Business to be with you? Could you imagine that there was information they deliberately did not reveal?

o What possible reasons are there? - Do you think the actual issue could be resolved?

o If not, how could the consulting / the way of Family Business be improved?

89

Maybe in terms of involvement? - Comparing family businesses with non-family businesses, where are the challenges or

difficulties that make the consulting different and in what way? - In your eyes, how must the advisor adjust his consultancy in order to sufficiently adapt

to the special characteristics of family businesses? o How does advising a family firm differ from advising a publicly-held

company? o Does the consultant have to behave differently? o Does a family firm require a different type of consultant?

Closing (Thank the interview partner)

- As a summary, are there clear points that you could say have to be changed when working together with family businesses?

- Is there anything that you would like to add or questions for me?

90

Appendix A2: Interview Outline_Family Business Introduction Give a brief introduction about the company. Deciding to hire a consultant

- For what reason (challenge, topic) did you bring in a consultant? - What made you seek external advise for your problem? Why did you not solve the

problem internally? - Were there any inhibitions or doubts when involving external help at first? - Was the timing right? Did you seek for external advice early enough, or did you hire

someone at a later (too late) stage? - Whose decision was it to bring in a consultant?

Choosing a consultant

- What were the criteria you established when choosing the advisor? What was important to you with regard to, e.g.

o Professional experience o Character / personality traits o Personal contacts / network of the consultant

§ Was it important to you that he had already worked for other family firms, or for SME, or that he dealt with a similar problem in another company? Would you prefer someone that someone you know with has already worked with?

o Company the consultant works for – do you prefer a single consultant or a large consultancy company?

§ Does this depend on the topic (e.g. more personal topics – family conflicts etc. – single person, audits & controlling – large company?)

Working with a consultant

- How open were you to the consultant? Was there any information you deliberately not reveal?

o What was the reason not to reveal certain information? - Who was involved in the consulting process? The management, the entire family, all

the employees?

- Could the actual issue be resolved? - What qualities did you particularly like about the consultant, and what were you less

happy with? - In your eyes, how must the advisor adjust his consultancy in order to sufficiently adapt

to the special characteristics of family businesses?

91

o How does advising a family firm differ from advising a publicly-held company?

o Does the consultant have to behave differently? o Does a family firm require a different type of consultant?

Some general questions on consulting

- Was it a typical consulting issue for family businesses in your opinion? - In your opinion, are there any issues where family-owned companies usually do not

seek external help, but where it might be necessary or beneficial? Closing (Thank the interview partner)

- May I ask you some questions about your person (education, professional background, decision to join the company)? Comparing to your predecessors, what have you changed?

- Is there anything that you would like to add or questions for me?

92

Appendix B: Interview Analysis

IP 1-3:Cons 4-6:FB

Lines Topic Statement

2 14-27 Incentives personenbezogene Beratung, , als wenn man grosse Unternehmen berät, die mehr auf stärkere Gewichtungen auf dem rein Technischen hat und das finde ich spannend. Zudem sind die in der Regal aus sehr agil, sehr spannende Unternehmen, die halt auch unkonventionelle Lösungen haben und das sind auch sehr spannende Leute die man kennenlernt. Die sind eher offen und sagen, jetzt probieren wir etwas aus, das vielleicht noch nicht so erprobt ist, da das vielleicht eine andere Lösung darstellt, sind immer auch an neuen Ideen interessiert und man kann die Sachen sehr gut. Das ist wichtig. Ja, das ist ganz klar. Wenn die von etwas überzeugt sind, können sie entscheiden. Die sind ganz sicher in einer anderen Struktur beheimatet als grosse Unternehmen, das ist ganz klar.

2 123 Challenges for Consultants

Misstrauen, Kosten, Effizient

2 132 Challenges for Consultants

Es gibt das klassische Beraterprofil nicht. Und deshalb gibt es auch den klassischen Familienberater nicht

2 162-167

Challenges for Consultants

Das (Kreis: Besitzer / Business) ist ein sehr heikles Gebiet, wo man als Berater vorsichtig sein muss, dass man nicht plötzlich in einen Konflikt geratet, zwischen diesen beiden Interessenfelder.

2 196-205 207-212


wenn der persönliche Bezug eine höhere Rolle spielt, dass man bereit ist, fachliche Ungenauigkeiten zu übersehen und durch das halt Gefahren mit sich bringt. Dass dann Fehler aufkommen, weil man den Berater nicht verlassen wollte. Das beobachte ich oft – der hat uns bereits 10 Jahre beraten, den können wir nicht einfach ersetzen. Obwohl der unmöglich in der Lage ist, das Wachstum dieser Firma zu begleiten. Das sehe ich oft. Jemand, der den Pioneer von Anfang an unterstützt hat, der seit 15/20 Jahren immer dabei war. Aber mittlerweile ist das U’ international, an verschiedenen Orten tätig mit komplexen rechtlich und steuerlichen fragen. Das überfordert einen solchen einen einzelnen Berater, dann wird es gefährlich. Das ist dann oft so, dass ich der kleinere Berater zurück gedrängt fühlt. Dann gibt es oftmals die Diskussion über Fachfragen, über Strategien, und dann ist es fast eine Art von Konkurrenz. Dann sitzt man an einem Tisch, muss sagen, was dazumals mal gemacht wurde, war ev nicht sehr geschickt und der Unternehmer und Berater kennen sich. Das kann dann ganz heikel werden. Und dann befindet sich der Unternehmer oft in einen Loyalitätskonflikt.

1 22-27 Challenges for Consultants

der Familienunternehmer hockt auf dem Portemonnaie. Wenn er einen Franken in die Beratung investiert, erwartet er höhere Töne, denn das geht von seinem Gewinn weg. Das ist ein Fluch, ein Ablöscher auf der einen Seite, auf der anderen Seite ist es auch spannend


Aus Kundensicht ist das sowieso die spannendste Beratung – in kurzer Zeit eine gute Beratung bringen. Das ist der Challenge. Wenn sie 100te Tage verkaufen können und x Marktanalysen, und das Feld so breit und umfassend anschauen, dann, das in kurzer Zeit, das ist der Challenge. Am Schluss, etwas derespektierlich aber ich bin seit 22 Jahren in der Beratung, kommt man auch mit wenig Zeit zu einer guten Lösung. Mit viel mehr Zeit ist die Lösung nicht viel besser, schon etwas besser, aber inkrementell.

1 144-149


In meiner Erfahrung, hat man Schwein, wenn der Eigentümer einen Hochschulabschluss hat. Meistens hat er keinen, und wenn er keinen hat, gibt es sowieso niemanden, der einen hat. Und dann kommt ein hochgestochener Berater mit Bachelor, Master oder sonst was, und das ist eine andere Welt, eine andere Kultur, ein anderes Niveau. Das ist dann schwierig.


Es geht jedoch länger, bis man das Vertrauen hat von denen Leuten, das ist eine rechte Hürde. Die beobachten einen, die schauen, gehen aufs Internet, sprechen wieder mit anderen und bis dann ein Auftrag kommt, geht es relativ lange.

3 109-111


Aber bis man das Vertrauen aufgebaut hat und er einwilligt, zusammen zu arbeiten, das benötigt viel mehr Geduld. Aber sie sind eher misstrauisch als sparsam, denn als Unternehmer weiss er dass er investieren muss.

3 167-174


Vertrauen Herstellen - Indem andere Leute von mir sprechen, indem ich Tagungen (zeigt mir Beispiel) organisiere, wie ich Gesprächsführungen mache, wen ich alles kenne. So merkt er, das ist etwas für ihn. Das ist meistens nicht so. Wenn ich die Social Media anschaue, FB, Linkedin, Xing, wo ich auch heftig mitmache, aber da sieht man kaum Unternehmer. Da sind Berater, Banker, Anwälte, etc, alle meine Kollegen sind dort drin, die ihre Netzwerke aufbauen, aber echtes Zielpublikum, also U’. die gehen nicht aufs FB um zu schauen, ob sie einen Berater finden. Dann eher noch im Lionsclub oder Rotery. Ah, kennst du einen Berater und dann, ja geh zu dem und dem. Und so läuft es.Mund zu mund


Ein anderer Aspekt: früher war mein Vater noch mehr der Patron, der nicht so den Zugang zu den MA gehabt hat, etwas unnahbar, und manchmal brauchte man dann einen externen zum Vermitteln. Das konnten Externe ev besser, vermitteln zwischen GL (Vater) und den MA. Das hat auch mit der Zeit zu tun


Der VR hat eine wichtige Person. Ansonsten, bin ich diesbezüglich ein merkwürdiger Mensch. Ich habe das Bedürfnis, die Probleme selber zu lösen und alle nötige Infos selber zusammenzusuchen. Mein Vater hatte diese Funktion eine Zeit lang. Zu ihm konnte ich gehen für Rat, aber er hat mir schon sehr früh viel Verantwortung gegeben. Ich habe das Bedürfnis eigentlich nicht. Um tiefgreifende Veränderung, NF-Regelung oder grundsätzliche Strukturen, dann würde ich mich schon bei einer Person rückversichern, und beraten lassen. Wenn ich die Problemstellung selber nicht mehr überblicken kann, werde ich jemand suchen, der sich diesbezüglich auskennt, die Situation kennt, die Konsequenzen und Optionen.

2 180-187

Criteria when coosing Cons

persöliche Beziehung. Eine Kombination zwischen fachlicher Qualität, und persönlicher Sympathie. Aber der Berater muss in der Lage sein, die Wünsche oder Anliegen, oder verschiedene Persönlichkeiten können mitnehmen und auf die gut eingehen können und beraten

93

2 190-198


Grösse - FUs, klein bis mittel, für sie ist eine personenbezogene Beratung wichtiger. Deshalb sind dort die kleineren Firmen, die von 1-2 Personen geprägt sind, sicher stärker involviert. Und die mittleren bis grossen, haben auch grössere U’ die sie beraten. Und dort ist auch die Komplexität höher, sprich die fachliche Kompetenz, spielt eine grössere Rolle. Und so verlagert es sich ein wenig, von der persönlichen zur fachlichen Kompetenz

1 200-229


Für mich wäre nicht die Grösse das Entscheidungskriterium, sondern welche Kompetenzen hat er, welche Branchen hat er bereits beraten, welche Fragestellungen schon beantwortet. Bei den grossen habe ich unter Umständen den Vorteil, dass die viel mehr Branchen Know-How haben, zB McKinsey. Die haben ein Industriecluster und dort im Bereich, Automation haben sie schon unzählige beraten, den ganzen Supply Chain haben die schon x mal abgedeckt. Die Frage lautet deshalb, was ist seine Fragestellung. Findet er zu dieser Fragetellung am Schluss einen persönlichen Berater. Bei den grossen wird er das Know-How wahrscheinlich finden. Aber wahrscheinlich bekommt er den mit der Verantwortung nicht über. Schliesslich hängt es von der Person ab, die dort steht und die Beratung macht. Und wenn er das erste mal mit einer Internationalisierungsfrage konfrontiert wird, dann löst er das auf dem Kunden zum ersten Mal. Dann macht der Berater und der Kunde diese Beratung zum ersten mal im Leben und er kann nicht von Erfahrungen profitieren. Nun, der Kunde bezahlt die Ausbildung des Beraters, wenn er das zum ersten Mal macht. Es kann ein guter Berater sein, der nur wenig Supervising beansprucht, es gibt aber auch die anderen. Ich würde nicht gross oder klein unterscheiden, sondern haben sie das Know-How und haben sie Referenzen in dem entsprechenden Theemengebiet und hier gibt es natürlich ganz klare Unterschiede. Bei den Kleinen hat man meistens einen guten Verkäufer, der etwas gutes erzählt, er seit auf diesem und jenem Gebiet einen Crack und dann muss man nachhacken und fragen, was sind jetzt diese 5 Referenzen, die du mir jetzt gibst, wo das bestätigen können. Und der macht sicher gute Arbeit, die Frage ist auf was. Denn sonst wäre er ja keinen Berater. Man muss einfach den Spezialisten finden. Zum Beispiel bei Steuerfragen, da habe ich keine Ahnung von, aber kenne Leute die es sind. Dann muss man dann nicht beraten. Oder wenn jemand Beratung im Cash-Management braucht zB, ich habe vom Studium eine Ahnung von was das ist, aber es käme mir nie in den Sinn, Cash-Management beraten zu wollen. Für das braucht es den Spezialisten.

3 120-135 136-142


diese Pioniere sind oft sehr kurlige Leute und haben einen psychischen Schaden und die sehen die Welt nicht mehr wie sie ist. Die haben ein gesteigertes Ego (erwäht: I’m ok, you’re ok, Transaktions analyse Buch). Und viele U’er haben das Gefühl, I’m Ok, you’re not ok. Das geht tief in die Psychie ein und sind sehr misstrauisch. Die haben immer das Gefühl, die anderen sind nicht so gut wie ich. Sie idealisieren sich selber und nehmen die anderen extrem unter die Lupe und sagen, ach, hab ichs doch gesagt. Bei Pioniere ist das so, dass sie viel kämpfen mussten, dass sie die Besten sind und das gibt dann irgendwo im Kopf ein Pattern das heisst, ich bin gut, gewinne, habe gewonnen. Und das zuletzt sind sie einfach das Mass aller Dinge. Das können sie beobachten, ein Hayek, der das sehr erfolgreich gemacht hat, aber ein Auge-Auge Dialog ist sehr schwierig. Ja, auch die eigenen Kinder sind nie gut genug, auch wenn sie gute Dinge tun. Ich hatte einen U’er, ziemlich autonom geführt, und der sagte, mein Sohn ist ein Waschlappen. Dann gingen wir zusammen in eine Sitzung, die der Sohn führte. Er zählte die Traktanden auf und fragte die Anwesenden, „was meint ich?“. Es sind ja Leute. Und der Pionier zu mir: „sehen sie, der hat keine Meinung.“ Der Vater hat darauf gewartet, dass der Sohn sagt, „so und so machen wirs, gibt’s noch Fragen?“. Aber der Sohn ist einfach ein anderer Typ, andere Generation, anderer Führungsstil. Klar, der Vater hatte keine Ausbildung, der Sohn ein Ingenieurstudium absolviert. Und der Sohn sagte er will einen Meinungsbildungsprozess. Und ich versuchte dem Vater zu erklären, der Sohn ist eine andere Generation, hat ein anderer Führungsprozess und sieht das Leben anders und hat einen anderen Stil. Ich habe ihn dann gebeten, das zu akzeptieren. Doch der Vater beharrte, nein, dieser Sohn taugt nichts. Mit dem konnte man nicht

sprechen und das Mandat ging in die Brüche. 扁牥攠�慫湮猠楥Ɱ搠獡� 4 65-66

70-72 Criteria when coosing Cons

Im Prinzip, hat er Erfahrung, dort wo wir sie brauchen. Hat er Referenzen und dann va, komme ich mit seiner Persönlichkeit klar. Es gibt die sachrationale Komponente vom Know-how, und die emotionale vom Menschen Hier brauchte ich Know-How das in der Firma gefehlt hat. Eine 1 Man Show, der war der Chef auf Distributionsanalyse. Es geht um das Know-How. Deshalb brauchen wir kein Grossu’

2 155-160

Decision Making - Consulting

Jetzt kommt es darauf an, ob es FUnternehmer sind, die aktiv tätig sind, oder ob sie Eigentümerinteressen haben. Das ist etwas unterschiedliches. Solche, die aktiv im U’ sind Treiben der Beratungsdienstleistungen im Interesse der Unternehmung. Man muss sehen, es gibt Beratungsfelder, wie Nachfolge, die nicht nur betriebliche Dimensionen haben. Dann geht es zur Eigentümerseite. Das darf man nicht vermischen, das sind zwei unterschiedliche Themenfelder.

3 73-92 Definitions / Clarifications

Anwalt / Treuhänder / Coaching (Familienrat, Familienverfassung) / BWLer

1 283-287

Differencies in Consulting

Prinzipiell ist sie sehr ähnlich. Sie haben mehr Druck, es wird mehr Leistung in kürzeren Zeit erwarten, das ist das Fazit. Es ist spannend, weil Sie haben einen Unternehmer vor sich, keinen Manager. Das ist ein grosser Unterschied. Denn der Unternehmer hockt auf dem Geld, das ist seines. Der Manager hat dieser Druck nicht in dem Mass.

4 75-79 Differencies in Consulting

Size of Consulting - damit er dem VR sagen kann, PWC ist gleicher Meinung. Das ist bei uns nicht der Fall. Als Inhaber / Aktionär / Geschäftsführer muss ich es schlussendlich selber verantworten. Wir diskutieren es im VR, aber ich entscheide am Schluss. Aber es kann sein, dass das Know-How oder die Persönlichkeit noch mehr im Vordergrund steht.

2 98 Education bessere Einschätzungsvermögen, mit wem sie arbeiten können.

94

5 6&7 8-47

Experience Wir haben bewusst, aus einer gewissen Enttäuschung, uns von der Beratung distanziert. Es kommt auch darauf an, was man unter Beratung versteht. Wie erfolgreich oder nicht, ist schwierig festzustellen. Ich empfand das zwar als interessante Veranstaltungen mit vielen Inputs. In aller Regel haben wir auch alle MA einbezogen aus allen Bereichen und Hierarchiestufen. Aber wir mussten dann auch feststellen, dass wir eigentlich nichts gemacht haben. Es waren gute Ideen, interessant, man lernt sich besser kennen. Aber im Prinzip, ist man nach 3 Tagen wieder im gleichen Trott wie am Anfang. Meine Schlussforderung: wichtiger ist eine gute Strategie, die man selber machen kann, denn man ist ja in dem Metier zuhause. Ev schon noch andere Meinungen oder Fachwissen, Trends einholen von Externen, aber wir können uns schon +/- darauf ausrichten für die Strategie sollte die GL und der VR das selber machen können. Wenn man die delegiert, ist das suboptimal. Das war der eine Teil der Beratung den wir hatten und der andere Teil galt eher der Organisationsentwicklung, Firmenkultur. Und dort geht es hauptsächlich um die MA-Zufriedenheit, und dort habe ich festgestellt, die Leute sind viel mehr interessiert an selbstständiger und interessanter Arbeit, wo sie Verantwortung tragen im täglichen Umgang. Meine Erkenntnis: an dem müssen wir arbeiten. Aber das können wir alleine. Wir hatten früher diese Seminare, an dem wir tageweise uns ausgetauscht hat zum Umgang. Die Leute, die es langsam verstehen, denen wurde es zu blöd immer über das gleiche zu sprechen und die anderen, die es nicht verstehen, die kommen es im Alltag mit über, oder dann nicht, und dann sind sie dann irgendwann wieder draussen. Das ist eher eine Führungsaufgabe. Wir haben entschieden, uns auf unser Metier, das Fach zu konzentrieren, dort erfolgreich zu sein. Und dass das mehr nützt, als Beratungsseminare und externe. Ein anderer Aspekt: früher war mein Vater noch mehr der Patron, der nicht so den Zugang zu den MA gehabt hat, etwas unnahbar, und manchmal brauchte man dann einen externen zum Vermitteln. Das konnten Externe ev besser, vermitteln zwischen GL (Vater) und den MA. Das hat auch mit der Zeit zu tun. Aber heute finde ich, brauchen wir das nicht mehr, denn der Austausch mit den MA ist gut. Nur, ich habe den Glauben verloren, dass wichtige Entscheide, von Externen vorgespurt werden sollten, das muss die GL machen können. Strategie formulieren und umsetzen, auch im Alltag. Wir haben so viel Papier geschrieben, wenn ich aufräume, und das Papier sehe, das wir während den Seminaren beschrieben haben. Eigentlich alles gute Ideen, aber man muss im Alltag schauen, dass es vorwärts geht, in kleinen Schritten. Das ist wichtiger.

5 80-86 Experience Dort habe ich die Erfahrung gemacht, dass es Lotterie ist, wen man bekommt. Man kann zu der renommierteste Beratungsfirma, aber man hat nicht immer Glück mit dem individuellen Berater. Der Support der Vorgesetzten ist ev da, muss aber nicht. Deshalb neige ich dazu, mich bei einer kleineren Firma, einem 1-Mann Betrieb, wohler zu fühlen. Wenn es um eine Fach- oder Strategie geht, kann es schon sein, dass zb die von Ernst & Young mit ihrer breiten Tätigkeit viel mehr wissen, als irgend ein kleiner Berater, der sich in jedes Mandat neu eindenken muss.

5 114-121 127-129

Experience Es gab schon Aktivitäten, die wir gut fand. Es ist eine simple Aufwand-Ertrag Rechnung. Denn eine solche Beratung braucht viel administrativer Aufwand und dann kommt noch das Honorar. Eigentlich va die guten MA wurden sich bewusst, wie teuer das war und was das dann gebraucht hat. Mit denen können wir ja auch direkt am Tisch sitzen und Angelegenheiten besprechen, das haben die eher geschätzt. Oder sie bekamen mehr Verantwortung in Projekten zB. Die wollen lieber arbeiten, das haben wir wirklich gemerkt. Architekten, Bauleiter haben Interesse an den Bauprojekte und nicht die Seminare, va die Macher-Typen. Sie sollen merken, was sie machen interessiert die GL und es ist nicht gleichgültig. Das bringt wahrscheinlich mehr, als eine teure Veranstaltung mit zweifelhaftem Nutzen.

5 181-198

Experience Tatsächlich haben wir die Problematik der fehlenden nachhaltigen Wirkung der Beratungssessionen mit den engagierten Beratern thematisiert. Als Resultat daraus wurden verschiedene Massnahmen umgesetzt. Dies waren z.B. on The Job Coaching, gegenseitiges Coachen von Mitarbeitenden etc. Die Wirksamkeit konnte in einzelnen Fällen gesteigert werden. Trotzdem verbleibt eine ungünstige Bilanz der Wirkung der Beratungssessionen. Dies liegt allerdings eher am mangelnden Nachdruck der GL zur Umsetzung der Erkenntnisse aus den Sessionen. Möglicherweise lag es auch daran, dass zu viele oder schlussendlich zu wenig praxisnahe Ansätze erarbeitet wurden. Die "Schuld" für die mangelnde Wirksamkeit der Beratungssessionen liegt somit nur zu einem kleineren Teil beim Berater. Ein erfolgreicher Berater müsste aber interessiert sein, Beratungslösungen anbieten zu können, welche eine möglichst nachhaltige Wirkung erzielen.

2 133 FB Specialities / Importance

Die Chemie muss einfach stimmen. Oftmals trifft man sich an einem Apero an Events, und dann findet man im Gespräch schnell, mit wem es klappen könnte. Durch das entsteht dann eine Art Beziehung, die wichtig ist.

2 142-144 / 146-150

FB Specialities / Importance

höhere Sensibilität Leuten gegenüberbringen. Man schaut zu den Leuten.

2 170-174


Bin ich ein Eigentümer der sagt, ich möchte möglichst viel profitieren von der U, dh der will Dividendenausschüttung, sprich Geld. Und der Unternehmer sagt, wir brauchen das für die U’, für Investitionen, fürs Wachstum und er zurückhaltend ist mit ausschütten. Das sind zwei legitime Interessen, mit unterschiedlichen Zielvorgaben.

1 37-42 FB Specialities / Importance

bei FU ist man einem preislich höherem Leistungsdruck ausgesetzt. Jedoch, was bei der Beratung typisch ist, man hat eine persönliche Beziehung, bei einem FU. Bei einer Grossfirma hat man auch eine persönliche Beziehung, aber der Druck finanziell ist nicht der gleiche. Natürlich hängt es auch vom Kunden ab, aber der finanzielle Druck bei FUs ist grösser. Das ist challenging.

1 139-144


Grundsätzlich ist es so bei KMUs, dass sie nicht unendlich viel Zeit haben. Das ist oft sehr effizient geführte Buden, und der Berater stiehlt eher Zeit. Der braucht Zeit, um die Firma, Branchen-Spezifisches und die Personen kennen zu lernen. In jedem Betrieb herrscht eine Eigenart, und die muss man zuerst kennen lernen. Kleine Firma haben neben zu wenig Zeit, ein weiteres Problem. Die haben zu wenig Know-How-Träger/innen, die konzeptionell arbeiten.

1 192-197


Wenn die Nachfolge ansteht, wir begleiten ja Firmen beim Verkauf, oder bei der Nachfolgelösung. Das ist natürlich ein emotionales Thema, aber das wird normalerweise auch nur einmal im Leben gemacht, der Eigentümer. Dann kommt jedoch eine weitere Instanz dazu, im Normalfall auch wieder ein Alphatier und im Ausnahmefall, kein Alphatier. Dann wird es spannend.

95

1 269-273


die sind immer emotional. Sonstige Herausforderungen sind keine wirklich so erkennen. Sie arbeiten mit dem Patron, der ist auf der selben Augenhöhe und der kann entscheiden. Das ist speziell. Das ist viel schneller. Denn er trifft die Entscheidungen. Er will ja auch effizient sein.

3 105-108


nein, weil ich den kleinen Unternehmen sind es Jungunternehmen/ in ihrem U? und bei den grossen Konzerngesellschaften, die sind dann eher in dem oberen Bereich. Der FU’er der investiert ja sonst, wenn er Anlagen kauft, wenn er neue Produkte patentieren lässt. Und wenn er von einem Projekt überzeugt ist, dann macht er das auch mit Hilfe von externen Beratern.

3 114-118


Es ist eine andere Art von Beratung. Deshalb beraten die grossen Beratungsu’ keine FU, denn meistens hat man einen Vorteil wenn man grau-melierte Haare hat und da kann kein 20-, 30, 40- jähriger nichts sinnvolles bewirken. Da muss man auf Augenhöhe sein, und der U’er akzeptiert von mir als 60-jähriger natürlich einiges mehr, als wenn Sie kämen und das gleiche sagen würden, wie ich.

3 240-244


Empathie / Kommunikation wichtiger - das kann man so sagen. Aber, wir dürfen uns nichts vormachen, wenn bei Konzerngesellschaften keine Empathie vorhanden ist, klappt es auch nicht. Dort ist man ev etwas toleranter und man akzeptiert einen vielleicht etwas eher, auch wenn er etwas unangenehm ist, aber immer wieder Recht hat. Aber auch dort, wo Menschen zusammen arbeiten gibt es Empathie und keine Empathie

3 248-272


Ich habe es vorhin schon kurz erwähnt, er soll nicht denken, er hat ein Konzept für alle. Extrem massgeschneidert. Mann muss schauen, was braucht er wirklich, das sind seine aktuellen Probleme, und oft muss man nicht mit dem Wichtigen anfangen, sondern mit dem Dringenden. Wenn man das Akute gelöst hat, soll man erst die anderen Probleme angehen. Der U’er will immer, dass man seine Jucke Punkte löst, aber die sind oft völlig banal. Wenn der Berater dem U’er sagt, das ist jetzt nicht wichtig, schauen wir lieber auf die grossen strategischen Angelegenheiten, dann denkt der U’er, ist das jetzt ein blöder Siech. Weil er muss es auch gelöst haben. Über die Jahre in der in der Beratung bin, habe ich einfach mehr und mehr Horror vor Standards, dass es nur ein richtiger Weg gibt. Wenn ich einem sage, er braucht eine Standortanalyse und er sagt, ich kenne meine Firma und ich trotzdem beharre, dann sind wir meilenweit voneinander entfernt. Aber wenn ich ihn dann frage, wohin gehen wir, international, national, wie sieht die Zukunft aus? Und so gehen wir in die Analyse, von der Zukunft in die Vergangenheit. Man muss das anders angehen, die Verpackung muss abgestimmt werden. Beim einem funktioniert es so, beim anderen nicht. Man braucht das Gefühl für die Situation und muss sich dementsprechend anpassen. Ich hatte mal einen Partner zum Thema Qualitätsmanagement. Jedes mal bei einem neuen Kunden, falls einmal das Wort „UM“ erwähnt worden ist, hat er ausgeholt wie eine Wilder. Bei ihm traf das Sprichwort zu: Wenn das einzige Instrument das man hat ein Hammer ist, ist jedes Problem ein Nagel. Es gibt natürlich viele schlechte Berater, das muss auch gesagt werden. Als Berater bewegen sie sich immer in der Komplexität zwischen diesen Kreisen. Deshalb ist noch lange nicht jeder McKinsey Berater ein guter FU-Berater, denn die kümmern sich bloss um das Operative und die Strategie. Bei FU’s, muss der Berater vielen gefallen, die Frau, Kinder, Geldgeber, Verwandter. Auch Achtung bei der Terminierung. FU sind in einer komplexeren Ausgangslage, die Stakeholderkomplexität ist viel grösser.

4 114-118


Wir haben auch jemanden im VR, der für die Verträge verantwortlich ist. Wir haben die zu 3. Diese Verträge gemacht (mit Vater), wie das aussehen wird bei dem Rücktritt. Derjenige ist jetzt im VR und gleichzeitig die Vertrauensperson der Familie, und der einzige der in alles Einsicht hat, in alle finanziellen Geschäfte, privat sowie geschäftlich.

4 137-140


Problematisch kann sein, wenn eine Firma operative Leute in der Firma hat und Leute die nur Aktienbesitzer sind, aber nicht im operativen Geschäft drin sind. Das ist gefährlich, dann haben die einen Shareholder- und die anderen einen Stakeholderansatz. Das kann zu Konflikten führen.

4 163 FB Specialities / Importance

Je kürzer die Entscheidungswege, desto schneller kann man entscheiden.

5 135-139


Für mich ist halt speziell, dass sich einer etwas mehr erlauben kann, und dass der nicht rausgeworfen werden kann. In einer FU kann man rel schnell und direkt die Weichen stellen. In anderen Firmen, gehen Entscheidungen viel länger. Ein Eigentümer muss natürlich schon auf die GL schauen, aber die kann man sich ja auch selber auswählen

2 52-63 Fields, where FB dont want to give insights

Succession, very personal. Only tackle the legal, operational stuff, but exclude human and social aspects, even though these are themost important. Difficult to consult, but good to reveal. Those issues are not consultable by me, but they have to tackle them.

5 150-153

Fields, where FB dont want to give insights

ich weiss um diese Schwäche (menschliche Differenzen zu erwähnen). Ich könnte mir zB bei heiklen Themen ein Berater zuziehen, der das kommuniziert. Aber ich finde, das sollte man auch selber können. Oder ich könnte auch ein Berater zuziehen, der mir halbjährlich sagt, was ich tun muss und mich etwas unter Druck setzt

1 106-114

Implementation

Und wenn man einen guten Job macht, dann kommen immer weitere Projekte dazu und man hat immer mit neuen Leuten zu tun. Da ist man bis zu 4-5 Jahren dabei an verschiedenen Projekten. Bei den privaten Firmen ist das jedoch anders, die hocken auf dem Geld. Wenn sie einen von der Strategieberatung haben, dann bringt der einen viel grösseren Nutzen zu Beginn bei der Konzeption. Der Tagessatz ist relativ gut und danach in der Umsetzung, kommt ja inhaltlich nichts mehr Neues dazu, sondern nur noch Umsetzungsunterstützung. Und das ist dann bei dem Tagesansatz, den der Berater berechnet, vielleicht nicht mehr so spannend.

5 234-237 228-230

Implementation

Aber gemäss Idealsituation, macht man eine Strategieprojekt, ein Massnahmeplan, der dann umgesetzt wird, und dann sitzt man monatlich für ein Review Meeting zusammen, wo die Leute berichten müssen. Das wäre schon, ist aber nicht immer die Realität. idR sollte eine guter Berater bei der Implementierung dabei sein dürfen. Aber das kostet Geld und weil es Geld kostet und die FU doch eher schauen, was es bringt und kostet, ist man nicht immer dabei.

1 26-27 Incentives auf der anderen Seite ist es auch spannend. Denn der erwartet viel Leistung für wenig Geld. 1 154-

160 Incentives Und der Berater ist das enfant-terrbile, nebenan und der kann reinreden, der kann auch mal eine blöde

Bemerkung machen. Wir sind zurzeit bei einer FU dabei, mehere Eigentümer und die wollen uns, weil wir heisse Themen auf den Tisch bringen. Sonst wird das nicht adressiert, aber der Berater der macht das. Der hat ein Mandat, das ist irgendwann beendet und dann ist er weg. Wenn er einen guten Job gemacht hat, bekommt er mal wieder ein, falls nicht, ist er sowieso wieder weg

96

3 16-24 Incentives Mir ist bei den Konzernen immer wieder aufgefallen, dass viel Arbeit für die Katze gemacht wird. Dann hat man für den Schweizer Konzern etwas gemacht, dann wollte das aber jemand in Amerika nicht umsetzen, und das hat immer wieder Frust ausgelöst. Da schafft man wie verrückt und irgendjemand in der Pyramide findet dann, er möchte das nicht. Wir haben auch schon ½ Jahr an einem Projekt gearbeitet, und dann einer im VR findet, das ist „Gacko“. Und bei den FUs wenn der U’, wenn er endlich etwas will, das passiert das auch. Das ist einer der Gründe, weshalb ich mich auf FUs spezialisiert habe. Er will dann auch meistens das, was man entwickelt und dann klappt das auch meistens.

2 21-23 Incentives: unconventional solution

Die sind eher offen und sagen, jetzt probieren wir etwas aus, das vielleicht noch nicht so erprobt ist, da das vielleicht eine andere Lösung darstellt, sind immer auch an neuen Ideen interessiert und man kann die Sachen sehr gut.

1 243 252-261

Information Policy

Intern - Sie geben prinzipiell weniger Informationen raus, das müssen nicht alle wissen. Man bekommt die Infos, die man braucht. Nicht mehr. Und wenn sie da zu viele Infos geben, könnte es gefährlich sein. Ich als Patron würde auch sagen, vorsichtig mit den Informationen. Anders bei einer Firma, wo das Management solche Sachen macht. Dort geht es mehr um die Kommunikation und Zielsetzung, Management bei Objectives. Und so wird man zum Ziel geführt. Und wer die Ziele nicht erreicht, müssen sie trotzdem gehen. Aber es wird mehr kommuniziert warum. Und da gibt es unendlich lange Diskussionen die Zeit brauchen, die der Patron nicht hat. Beim Patron sind das kürzere Prozesse.

1 263-266

Information Policy

Extern - die Berater bekommen alle Informationen. Wir sind ja das externe Gewissen. Die erzählen uns alle Details, das ist kein Problem. Da erkenne ich keine Unterschiede. Wenn man zum Berater geht, das muss man Fragen beantworten und die Infos offenlegen.

3 213-214 219-225

Information Policy

Wenn es nötig ist, wenn das Ergebnis verbessert werden soll, dann braucht man natürlich Einsicht in die Zahlen. Aber sonst nicht. Worauf ich Angst habe keine Lust habe, sind pauschale Bemerkungen, wo man sagt, FU rücken nur ungerne mit den Infos raus und sind informationsscheu. Sie rücken schon raus, einfach dort wo es notwendig ist. 1. Es gibt nicht nur „das“ FU, das hängt von der Grösse, Generation und je nach dem ob es ein Start-Up U’ in der Wachstumsphase oder eines, das schon 150 Jahre als ist. Das sind ganz andere Themen. Da muss man immer wieder aufpassen vor Verallgemeinerungen oder Kategorisierungen. Das ist sehr gefährlich. Immer individuell schauen, was ist sinnvoll.

4 89-91 Information Policy

wir sind offen was Prozesse angeht, aber der Grundsatz lautet Verhaltensmässig. Er bekommt die infos die er braucht. Aber wir verschweigen ihm nichts, denn das bringt sonst nicht. In dem Themenfeld muss alles auf den Tisch.

5 89-92 Information Policy

Organisationsentwicklung, Firmenentwicklung - Dort haben wir sehr offen mit den Beratern kommuniziert. Es war eindrücklich, dass auch die MA immer offener wurden. Ich denke nicht, dass eine Hemmschwelle das erschwert hätte.

2 118-122

Inhibitions & Doubts

Kostet viel und bringt nichts --> Herausforderung für Berater, Dass man tatsächlich, so nah wie möglich an dieses Unternehmen rankommt, versteht um was es geht und den sogenannten Zusatznutzen bringen kann

4 81-83 Inhibitions & Doubts

Inhibition - ja, sicher. Dann haben wir intern beschlossen, dass jemand von uns sich dieses Know-How aneignen soll mit Weiterbildung. Das machen wir nächste Woche, wo 2/3 der GL ein Seminar besucht, um das ganze QS überarbeiten werden.

2 162-165

Involvement Es gibt zb Fälle, wo sie entweder beim einen oder anderen aktiv sind, aber nicht in beiden. Und bei solchen, die in beiden Orten aktiv sind, da muss man ganz vorsichtig sein. Der Eigentümerteil, muss nicht die gleichen Interessen vertreten, wie der Unternehmerteil.

3 204-208

Involvement Der Patron entscheidet, aber wenn er nicht will, passiert nichts. Das hängt aber natürlich sehr davon ab, von den Generationen. Wenn er eine moderne Ehe führt und sie immer 1:1 mitgearbeitet hat, dann wird er die Frau auch um Rat fragen, aber sagen wir mal, den Patriarch in den 70er Jahren und eine Frau, die die Buchhaltung & Sekretariat geführt hat, und ihm einfach mit dem Backoffice zugedient hat, der entscheidet relativ patriarchalisch.

4 123-136

Involvement Unsere Kinder sind jedoch noch zu jung, dass sie mitentscheiden könnten, 13 und 15. Aber wir diskutieren zuhause am Tisch, wenn wir zB eine Investition tätigen. Auch in der GL, mit dem VR. Der VR wird jedoch erst eingeschalten, wenn die Entscheidung bereits recht gedeiht ist. Das sind keine One-Man Shows, das wird miteinander diskutiert und zwar auf diesen verschiedenen Ebenen. Früher war das noch nicht der Fall, da mein Vater und ich voll im täglichen operativen Geschäft involviert waren. Da haben wir vielen einfach zu zweit entschieden und umgesetzt. Jetzt wird mehr auf GL und VR gespielt. Ich habe bei beiden Gremien den Vorsitz und möchte beide involvieren. So macht der GL und VR auf beiden Stufen Sinn. Die Familie spielt schon eine Rolle, aber diese Entscheidungen müssen familienunabhängig passieren. Denn die U’ muss laufen. Die Strategie muss stimmen, mit den richtigen Betriebsmittel, also investiert man. Dann ist es nicht relevant, wie viel Dividenden es gibt. Die Firma muss sich weiterentwickeln. Priorität hat ganz klar das U’, denn wenn es der U’ gut geht, geht es auch der Familie gut um umgekehrt. Aber wenn es der Firma gut geht, dann naja. Das U’ muss gesund sein, dann geht es dem Rest auch gut.

2 101, 105-106

Other Consultants

Die Banken, die Organisationsform, rechtliche Vorgaben, Revisionsstelle, Wunsch/Druck von aussen

2 89-96 Pionier Da stelle ich fest, dass der sogenannte Pioner, der der das ganze aufgebaut hat, der hat ja bereits als er angefangen hat, gegen so viele Widerstände und Riskien müssen durchsetzen, dass er sich ein hohen Selbstvertrauen bei der Problemlösung aufgebaut hat... der ist oft eher zurückhaltend mit Beratung und hat auch oftmals gute Leute um sich herum.

1 151-141

Pionier In einer typischen FU ist der Patron der einzige, der etwas zu sagen hat, und die anderen müssen schweigen. Obwohl die anderen Leute, oftmals sehr interessante Ideen haben. Aber sie sagen nichts, da sie ja unterstellt sind.

97

3 34-39 43-46 48-54 56-61

Pionier diese Pioniere sind oft sehr kurlige Leute und haben einen psychischen Schaden und die sehen die Welt nicht mehr wie sie ist. Die haben ein gesteigertes Ego (erwäht: I’m ok, you’re ok, Transaktions analyse Buch). Und viele U’er haben das Gefühl, I’m Ok, you’re not ok. Das geht tief in die Psychie ein und sind sehr misstrauisch. Die haben immer das Gefühl, die anderen sind nicht so gut wie ich. Sie idealisieren sich selber und nehmen die anderen extrem unter die Lupe und sagen, ach, hab ichs doch gesagt. Bei Pioniere ist das so, dass sie viel kämpfen mussten, dass sie die Besten sind und das gibt dann irgendwo im Kopf ein Pattern das heisst, ich bin gut, gewinne, habe gewonnen. Und das zuletzt sind sie einfach das Mass aller Dinge. Das können sie beobachten, ein Hayek, der das sehr erfolgreich gemacht hat, aber ein Auge-Auge Dialog ist sehr schwierig. Ja, auch die eigenen Kinder sind nie gut genug, auch wenn sie gute Dinge tun. Ich hatte einen U’er, ziemlich autonom geführt, und der sagte, mein Sohn ist ein Waschlappen. Dann gingen wir zusammen in eine Sitzung, die der Sohn führte. Er zählte die Traktanden auf und fragte die Anwesenden, „was meint ich?“. Es sind ja Leute. Und der Pionier zu mir: „sehen sie, der hat keine Meinung.“ Der Vater hat darauf gewartet, dass der Sohn sagt, „so und so machen wirs, gibt’s noch Fragen?“. Aber der Sohn ist einfach ein anderer Typ, andere Generation, anderer Führungsstil. Klar, der Vater hatte keine Ausbildung, der Sohn ein Ingenieurstudium absolviert. Und der Sohn sagte er will einen Meinungsbildungsprozess. Und ich versuchte dem Vater zu erklären, der Sohn ist eine andere Generation, hat ein anderer Führungsprozess und sieht das Leben anders und hat einen anderen Stil. Ich habe ihn dann gebeten, das zu akzeptieren. Doch der Vater beharrte, nein, dieser Sohn taugt nichts. Mit dem konnte man nicht sprechen und das Mandat ging in die Brüche.

2 70-74 Psychology Ob man dann Fachleute beizieht, dies gibt es, aber das ist relativ selten, also soweit geht es in der Regel nicht. Man muss sehen, das sind Unternehmen, eigene Persönlichkeiten, das sind auch eigentständige Personen. Dass es da Personen gibt, die ihnen sagen, wo sie sich vielleicht sollten ändern, das ist in der Regel sehr schwierig.

2 64-69 Psychology Ich mache mittlerweile schon klar die Unterscheidung zwischen Leuten, denen zu helfen ist, und anderen, bei denen geht es einfach nicht. Es gibt auf 50, 30 bei denen kann es klappen und bei den anderen 20 wäre die Beratung umsonst. Das ist eben speziell bei den FUs, wo die Psyche sehr wichtig ist, im Gegensatz zu Konzernen, bei denen das eine kleinere Rolle spielt. Ich spreche vom Patron selber, dann hat er ev geheiratet, hat Kinder, ist geschieden, hat Kinder von der 2. Ehe und dann wollen die auch in die Firma und das gibt einen riesen „Salat“.

2 66-70 Requirements for Consultants

Fähigkeit mitbringen, überhaupt so etwas (andere Probleme, ausser die Technischen) zu erkennen

2 176-177

Requirements for Consultants

Das ist wichtig, der Berater entscheidet nie, das ist nicht seine Aufgabe.

2 215-225 227-238 243-258


der klassische FU-berater muss Freude haben an Menschen. Er muss sich für Unternehmen, für innovative Ideen und für die besonderen Persönlichkeiten begeistern können. Er muss mit Herzblut auf solche Mandate eingeben können und nicht nur am Technischen interessiert sein. Eine Beratung für FU geht über technischen Wissen hinaus. Es gibt oftmals auch persönliche Beziehungen. Man muss sich in dem Umfeld wohlfühlen müssen und diese Sprache verstehen können und auch die Philosophie. Die haben klare Wertvorstellungen, die für sie massgebend sind. Darin muss man sich wohl fühlen müssen, falls das nicht der Fall ist, merkt man das sofort. Dann wird die Kommunikation etwas knorzig. Mann muss auch mit den Personen ein Konzert besuchen gehen und über Gott und die Welt sprechen können und es stimmt irgendwie immer, das ist wichtig. ich glaube wenn man die U’ und die Leute dahinter nicht wirklich kennt, und man nicht weiss, was die bewegt und beschäftigt, dann können sie auch die Beratung nicht richtig machen. Denn wenn sie eine Nachfolgeregelung-Beratung machen und sie nicht genau verstehen, was das für eine U’ ist. Diese U’, etwas überspitzt, ist fast wie ein Spiegelbild der Personen, die das verantworten. Das lebt eben auch. Und sind organische Strukturen mit Kultur und klaren Wertvorstellungen. Die leben nach einer ganz bestimmten Grundphilosophie. Nach dieser Grundhaltung wählen sie ihre Laute aus und führen und leben das U’ und entscheiden auch. Und wenn sie das nicht verstehen, dann werden sie ev falsche Entscheidungen treffen. Vielleicht kann schon die richtige Entscheidung sein, aber ev auch zufällig und nicht ganz im Wissen von diesem Umfeld. Und dann ist es auch gefährlich und man wird kaum lange dort bestehen können. Es ist aber schon klar, dass bei FUs ist es eine langandauernde, konstante Beziehung, die nicht immer gleich wieder einen Auftrag beinhaltet oder ein Projekt, aber es ist so, dass man immer im Kontakt ist. Ev ist es zeitweise etwas intensiver, und man begleitet den Kunden. Es muss einen halt interessieren. Wenn in der Zeitung etwas über das U’ steht, dann schreibt oder telefoniert man dieser U’ und man trifft sich auch regelmässig. Das gehört dazu.


Erfahrung, Bei den Kunden die schauen, das merke ich schon. Ich offeriere auch Projekte, bei denen ich noch nicht so viele Erfahrung habe. Vielleicht habe ich ja Schwein, aber der Kunde, der gut evaluiert, der schaut schon auf die Erfahrung. Der macht sich zuerst die Gedanken, was hat der gemacht in diesem Gebiet. Oder vielleicht sucht er eine andere Kompetenz, jemand der vielleicht sehr kreativ ist. Dann ist es nicht zwingend, dass er den Prozess bereits mehrmals gemacht hat.

4 143-149 156-158


Diese U’-Eigentümer haben schon oft spezielle Charakteren und Eigenschaften. Die haben sich zu dem entwickelt, durch die Tätigkeit, die sie so und so lang gemacht haben. Ev sind sie etwas kantiger, etwas konsequenter, ev gehen sie aber auch sensibler auf die MA ein, oder dass sie mal mit dem Hammer kommen. Deshalb müssen die Berater sich auf diese Charakteren eingehen können und wollen, was nicht immer ganz einfach ist. Durch die ganze Grössen-Bandbreite. (gibt Bsp, dass U’er sehr unangenehme Typen sein können). Auf diese Leute muss man sich einlassen können. Und der Berater will es wollen. Diese Leute sind nicht präsentations-orientiert. Diese Leute wollen schnell etwas sehen, das Hand und Fuss hat. Und nicht die grossen Wölkli-übungen. Für U’er sind oft weniger mehr.


Organisationsprozesse / Firmenkultur - Die Person ist natürlich sehr wichtig. Es muss eine Person sein, die in der Lage sein, das Bedürfnis zu erkennen, was wir brauchen. Er muss auch die Firma kennen lernen, wissen wie der Markt und die Branche funktionieren. Jemand, der sich wirklich reindenken kann. Wir hatten viele Berater. Einige konnten das gut, andere kamen mit ihrem Standardprogramm, obwohl sie behaupteten, es sei angepasst. Aber man merkte schon, jetzt kommt das Fach XY dran. Das ist eine Anforderung. Jemand, der Branchenkenntnis hat und sich in die Firma eindenken kann. Es kommt auf die Art und Weise der Beratung an. Das gilt für Berater, die Operationsprozesse optimieren würde, oder sich auch mit der Firmenkultur auseinander setzen

98


Hard Factors (finanzielles) - Dort ist Fachwissen der Hauptpunkt. Dass es jemand ist, der zu dem Thema Bescheid weiss, und Erfahrung hat. Die Person ist dann sekundär.

5 140-144


Jeder Mensch / Eigentümer sieht es anders. Berater müssen sich sehr individuell auf den Eigentümer ausrichten und ev ist ein Tool-Cockpit für viele nicht der richtige Weg, für andere aber schon. Aber kann nicht sagen, FUs funktionieren so und so, sondern jede funktioniert wahrscheinlich etwas anders.

2 39-49 Succession Ja das ist interessant, die Nachfolge ist ein grosses Thema. Jeder hat das Gefühl dies sei das wichtisgte, aber in der Realität ist das eben ganz individuell, wie sie sich beraten lassen. Auch wieder in welcher Generation steckt die Unternehmung?

1 188-190

Succession Bitte überwerten sie die Nachfolge nicht so sehr. Das ist kein Thema. Alle Firmen brauchen Nachfolge, es gibt immer eine Nachfolgelösung. Es ist nicht das Hauptproblem.

3 93-99 Succession Das unterschätzt man immer. In der Presse ist die Rede immer von der riesen Anzahl Firmen nachfolgeunfähigen Firmen. Doch wenn man mal schaut, das ist abhängig von der Pyramide, in der Schweiz gibt es bloss 1000 mittlere bis grosse FUs (ab 250 MA). Von den ganz kleinen, Mikrou’, von denen gibt es 261'000. Dass hier mal eine Nachfrage nicht klappt, ist egal. Dann muss der Coiffeur halt den Laden schlissen oder verkaufen, wenn ihn niemand haben will. Das ist vwl kein Drama. Ein Drama ist es dann, wenn es viele MA hat und grossen Umsatz. Ich berate eher oben. Der untere lohnt sich aus meiner Perspektive nicht.

4 96-98 100-105 108-11

Succession das ist tatsächlich ein spezielles Thema, welches von jeder Familie selber gelöst werden muss. Die Frage ist dann, welche Art von Beratung braucht es hier? Wichtig ist einfach, dass die abtretende Generation sich dazu Gedanken macht. bei Ihnen? - ich habe mir ein Ziel gesetzt. Mein Vater hat mir die Geschäftsführung übergeben, als er 65 war und ich 31 als GL-Vorsitz. Meine Kinder sind noch etwas jünger, aber ich habe mir auch einen Punkt gesetzt, mit 55, wo ich mir dieses Thema überlegen werde. Das werde ich bestimmt machen. Dann beginnt eine Phase, ganz allgemein, das ich gelernt habe, in denen Jahren, sollte man sich die NF überlegt haben. Denn NFen nach 60 sind schwieriger, als die zuvor. . Und dazu kommen noch so viele andere Faktoren, wie Wirtschaftslage, in der Branche, macht eigenes Kind Sinn, haben die Freude, passen sie in die Firma rein.. ein schwieriges Thema. Ev werden dann wieder verschiedene Beratungsansätze nötig.

2 139-141

Timing Im Trend werden Berater erst eingesetzt, wenn es bereit brennt. Das hat auch damit zu tun, dass jeder heutzutage komplett ausgelastet ist und Beratungsgespräche führen ist eindeutig nicht die Priorität von diesen Leuten

1 132-136

Timing Da gibt es alles und das kann man nicht generalisieren. Meistens sehen sie, dass sich der Markt verändert und dass sie sich neu orientieren müssen. Einige kommen sehr früh, die sagen sie wollen eine neue Strategie, wir wollen einen Input von aussen. Dann gibt es aber solche, die bereits im Credit-Workout sind von den Banken, wo dann die Bank sagt, da braucht es einen Berater.

1 292-294

Timing Schnelle Entscheidungen sind oftmals die besten. Was schlecht ist, sind keine Entscheidungen zu treffen. Oder ewig zu diskutieren, das ist nicht produktiv und die MAs verlieren die Motivation. Diskussionen um den Hintergrund sind notwendig, aber ab einem gewissen Zeitpunkt sind schnelle Entscheidungen besser.

3 179 Timing Das hängt wieder zusammen mit dem Pionier, der kommt erst wenn es brennt. 3 44-54 Timing Von der ganzheitlichen Führung, ist die Antenne soweit ausgespannt, dass wir proaktiv diese Leute die wir

brauchen, reinholen um dem Wettbewerber, 2 Schritte voraus zu sein. Wir sind nicht der KMU, wo der Handwerker nur seinem täglichen Geschäft nachgeht und nie fakturiert und so in eine Schieflage gerät. Wir sind ein industrieller Zulieferer in die Pharmaindustrie und kein Gewerbebetrieb, aber wir müssen sagen, die traditionellen Familienaspekte sind auch hier. Aber es ist ein grosser Unterschied wenn sie die U’s anschauen, wo der Handwerker, die den technischen Beruf gelehrt haben, bei uns wäre es der Polygraf, das U’ aufgebaut hat, dann ist die Gefahr da, weil die MGT-Fähigkeiten nicht so ausgeprägt sind, wie sie sollten. Und das ist nicht der Fall, denn wir haben die vom Studium und von der Praxis her geholt. Das ist ja die ureigene Aufgabe, die ich als Gesamtleiter des U’ wahrnehmen muss.

4 56-59 Timing Auf dem ganzen Feld hat eine Professionalisierung stattgefunden. Und oft hat sich der U’ noch weitergebildet, bevor er den Laden übernommen hat. So hat sich das verbessert. Der KU, der 5-10 Mann Betreib, dort ist es häufiger, dass der Notfallberater kommen muss.

2 Trigger idR ist es einfach eine Problemstellung, die für sie wichtig ist und wo sie klar erkennen, da haben wir die nötige Kompetenz nicht innerhalb der Firma (schwieriger Auftrag / neue Märkte/ neuer Partner/..)

1 168-172

Trigger Nur, oder wenn dann die Bank kommt. Wenns dann zu spät ist, vor dem Turnaround, im Handlungszwang und die Bank sagt, wir verlängern den Kredit nicht weiter. Wir haben viele Fälle von Familien AGs, bei denen der Geldhahn abgedreht wird. Und dann kommt die Bank und will wissen, gibt es überhaupt einen Markt für diese Produkte.

3 146-152

Trigger meistens ist es der Druck von aussen. Entweder, geht es ihnen ganz schlecht und die Bank drückt, oder ein Lieferant sagt, er möchte dass die FU die Nachfolge regelt. Das macht zb die ABB ganz gezielt. Wenn die von einer Firma Teile bestellen und die wissen, dass sie in 10 Ersatzteile benötigen, und die Firma hops gegangen ist in der Zwischenzeit, hat sie ein riesen Problem. Deshalb schaut die ABB, dass die Firmen die heute liefern, auch noch in 10, 20 Jahren beliefern können. Die ABB stellt dann die Voraussetzung, dass die Nachfolge geliefert ist. Also der Druck von aussen.

3 194-198

Trigger das kommt darauf an. Sehr oft haben FU keine externe Verwaltungsräte. Aber ich plädiere ganz stark dafür, dass FUs externe Leute im VR haben sollten, damit sie bewusst sicherstellen können, dass keine solche Blindflüge stattfinden können. Wenn jetzt trotzdem externe gibt im VR, dann entscheiden die oft mit, ob eine Beratung in Anspruch genommen werden soll. Das ist auch sinnvoll.

2 29-37 Typical consulting fields

depends on their background: wenn sie von einem eher technischen Hintergrund mitbringen, dass sie sich dann im administrativen, betriebswirtschaftlichen, rechtlichen verstärkt beraten lassen. Die, die vielleicht bereits in der 2. Generation oder 3. Schon, mit einem betriebswirtschaftlichen oder juristischen Hintergrund kommen, dass die mehr technisch strategische Beratung suchen. Es ist wirklich sehr abhängig vom persönlichen Hintergrund und vom Hintergrund, in der die Unternehmung ist


Bei mir kommen sie mit Strategie- und Organistationsentwicklungsfragen normalerweise. Aber die kommen nicht mit speziellen Fragen.

99


Ich würde einen Externen nehmen, wenn ich ein gewisses Expertenwissen suche. Wenn ich jemand suche, der diese Art von Fragestellung schon ein paar mal beantwortet hat. Jemand der zB Prozesserfahrung hat, jemand der weiss, worauf zu schauen ist. Man muss nicht alles selber machen, das macht der Unternehmer sowieso nicht. Er muss wissen, wo habe ich meine Kernkompetenezn


Der will etwas Alleinstellendes, etwas Exklusives auf Niveau Strategie. Auf Niveau Organisation sieht es vielleicht etwas anders aus. Aber da möchte er vielleicht auch, wenn er Prozesse optimierien möchte, dann möchte er vielleicht auch sehen, wie läuft der Verkaufsprozess in einer anderen Firma, wie geht Hunting und Farming, wie machen die das. Wenn man halt viele Verkaufsprozess-Teams begleitet hat, kann man Beispiele einbringen. Die machen das so und so. Er sucht eigentlich Erfahrung. Wie viel mal hat er das schon gemacht. Wie viele Referenzen hat der auf dem Gebiet, die er vorweisen kann, also sucht er eigentlich Senior Leute.

1 121-123 126-129

Typical consulting fields

Also meistens nehmen sie keinen Berater, die meisten FU versuchen, die Probleme selber zu lösen, weil sie auf der „Kohle hocken“. Das ist meine Unterstellung und sie fragen nur sehr selten nach einer Beratungskompetenz. Aber im Normalfall müssen sie recht verzweifelt sein, dass sie einen Berater beiziehen. Sie werden mehr KMUs antreffen ohne Berater, als solche die bereits eine Beratung in Anspruch genommen haben.


Jedes FU hat eine eigene Geschichte, Historie, und deshalb kann man das nicht verallgemeinert sagen. Je nach dem, ob ein Gründer da ist, und schon die 2. Generation, ist das Problem anders, als wenn sie zb in der 5. Generetion sind und 6. Tritt an, da weiss an bereits, das gibt ein sauberes Prozedere. Wenn sie ein FU haben, wo der Pionier noch tätig ist, die können nur ganz schlecht loslassen.

3 5-16 17-20 25-32

Typical consulting fields

Durch das, dass ich selber BWL studiert habe an der Uni St. Gallen, ist es nicht nötig, dass wir die ganze Zeit eine Beratung benötigen, vor allem nicht im klassischen Sinn eines U’beraters. In der Familie drin waren wir noch nie Techniker, sondern Kaufleute und BWLer. Von dem her gesehen, wie das U’ funktioniert und geführt werden sollte, haben wir vom Studium her und vom Denken her, auf den Weg mitbekommen. Einsatz von Consulting waren immer nur spezifisch in den Gebieten, bei denen wir dieses Know-How zu wenig, oder nicht selber hatten. Unser gemeinsamer Bekannte (Schnidirig) hatte mal das Mandat, den Markt zu analysieren und Wettbewerber zu identifizieren, die wir übernehmen könnten oder kooperieren. Wir hatten auch schon Beratung in den Zertifizieren, wir haben uns vor Jahren ISO 9000 zertifizieren lassen und dort brauchten wir einen Berater. So haben wir uns Know-How geholt. Auch beim Umweltzertifikat, oder dann im GMP Bereich (goood mgt practise). Dieses Zertifikat legt einem die Pharmaindustrie ihren Lieferanten auf. Es waren immer Teilsegemente, die wir in unserem ganzheitlichen Führungsansatz gebraucht haben. Dort wo wir noch nicht fit waren und wir fit werden wollten, in diesen Teilbereichen, haben wir Berater zugezogen für eine temporäre Zeit. Coaching - Gar nicht ist übertrieben, aber wir hatten einen Steuerberatung, als ich das Geschäft von meinem Vater übernommen habe und dort haben wir Verträge ausgearbeitet. Es ging va um Recht und Steuern. Und dann haben wir einen starken VR, jetzt. So holt man sich auch eine gewisse Beratung rein und Ziele setzt. Coaching, der VR hat ganz klar die Aufgabe, mir den Spiegel vorzuhalten. Denn als CEO und VR-Präsident, brauche ich Sparringpartner die das machen und mir sagen, ob das richtig ist. Oder wie mache ich es noch effektiver?


Das könnte schon ein Grund sein für eine Beratung, wenn man den Kontakt zu den MA verliert, oder den Boden unter den Füssen, wenn man selbstzufrieden wird und man nicht mehr wirklich connected sind.

100

Appendix C: Declaration of Sole Authorship

"I hereby confirm that I have completed this Bachelor Thesis independently and

without the help of third parties, that all my sources and all the literature employed for this

purpose have been duly documented, that I will duly respect the claim to confidentiality of

the person(s) who have commissioned this Thesis, and that I will observe the relevant

copyright provisions of the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts."

Signed: __________________________

Place: ___________________________

Date: ___________________________

Documents

Bachelor Thesis Dubinsky - Hochschule-Luzern · 2016. 9. 29. · This Bachelor Thesis is submitted as part of the requirements for the BSc in Business Administration at the School