(Why unclear “who does what” turns family business into the Wild West)
One of the most reliable generators of conflict in a family business is surprisingly simple: nobody is fully sure who is responsible for what, who has authority to decide, and who is accountable when things go wrong.
Founders often dismiss titles and job descriptions as “corporate nonsense.” Staff rarely agree. When people can’t tell who owns a decision, they either hesitate, duplicate effort, or take control. All three create friction. Add family history, sibling dynamics, and unspoken expectations, and the business becomes an arena for power grabs, resentment, and ongoing confusion.
How the Problem Starts
Most family businesses begin with an intuitive division of labour:
- the founder handles “everything that matters”
- the spouse or partner keeps admin and operations moving
- the children “help out”
Then the business grows. The children grow up. Complexity increases. And the early informal model doesn’t scale.
When next generation family members join without clear job descriptions, defined authority boundaries, performance expectations, and reporting lines, they struggle to find their place. Their siblings struggle to accept it. Employees struggle to work around it. Conflict becomes likely even when everyone has good intentions.
This is also where vague promises (“one day you’ll run this”) replace real continuity and succession planning, quietly laying landmines for later.
Why Role Clarity Matters More in Family Business
Every complex organisation needs role clarity. A family business needs it even more because three systems operate at once:
- the individual system (personal needs, identity, ambition)
- the family system (belonging, hierarchy, loyalties, history)
- the business system (commercial performance, customers, accountability)
When these legitimate needs aren’t recognised and managed, people default to assumptions. Those assumptions tend to be defensive. Defensive assumptions become resentment. Resentment becomes conflict.
Role ambiguity also invites “authority drift” and “boundary confusion”:
- a family member assumes business authority because they hold status in the family
- or they avoid asserting themselves in the business because they feel low status at home
- the chain of command becomes optional
- staff don’t know whose direction is legitimate
That creates instability even before succession begins.
Common Conflict Patterns When Roles Are Unclear
1) Succession conflict starts early
Unclear roles and unclear plans create predictable leadership arguments:
- “I’m the oldest, so I should lead.”
- “I’m the most competent, so I should lead.”
One person is following an inheritance script. Another is following a merit script. If the family hasn’t agreed which script applies, the conflict is almost inevitable.
2) Ambiguous executive roles breed cliques and resentment
When roles are vague, contribution can’t be measured fairly. That triggers:
- perceptions of favouritism
- “I do more than you” disputes
- pay and promotion conflict
- silent resentment that accumulates until a catalyst blows it open
3) Owners behave like managers
In a normal organisation, “owner” is not a position on the organisational chart. Yet in family business, owners often inject themselves into operations without any defined mandate.
Staff then face impossible choices:
- comply and bypass management
- refuse and risk offending “the family”
- stay silent and watch the business slide into dysfunction
None of those outcomes support performance or trust.
4) Parents undermine adult children in the workplace
If a parent treats an adult child like a child at work, it collapses that child’s authority in front of staff. Even competent successors become “not really in charge” because the family dynamic has leaked into the workplace.
5) Working vs non-working family tension
Non-working family members may feel excluded. Working family members often feel they carry risk, stress, and responsibility while others still benefit from ownership. If the family hasn’t separated and explained ownership, leadership, and employment properly, this becomes a recurring conflict cycle.
6) Spouses and partners crossing the line
Spouses can be valuable allies and stabilisers. They can also inflame conflict if they interfere with operations or staff without authority. This is especially risky when the family has no clear boundaries about who can influence business decisions.
The Building Blocks That Reduce Conflict
Titles and job descriptions are not ego tools
They are clarity tools.
A meaningful title with a clear role description tells everyone:
- what decisions a person can make
- what decisions they must escalate
- what outcomes they own
- who they report to
- who reports to them
When titles and responsibilities are clear, certainty increases. Certainty reduces suspicion. Reduced suspicion lowers conflict risk.
Boundaries must be explicit and defended
Once boundaries exist, ignoring them is disrespectful and corrosive, even when it looks minor.
Examples of useful boundaries:
- no business criticism of family members in front of employees
- no “family authority” language in business decisions (“because I’m your father”)
- no undermining a successor’s decisions after handover
- agreed rules about business talk at family gatherings
Boundary violations are rarely catastrophic alone, but they accumulate. Over time they erode respect and then trust, which is exactly how conflict becomes normalised.
Authority must match responsibility
Authority is the power to decide, allocate resources, and direct action. In family business, authority can be:
- earned authority (respect and trust built through capability and behaviour)
- claimed authority (position-based power: CEO, director, chair, owner, parent)
Both exist. Trouble begins when they conflict and there is no governance structure to reconcile them.
“Authority drift” is a classic example: a successor receives the title, but the former leader retains the real power. This creates confusion, resentment, and stalled succession.
Accountability is essential, even when uncomfortable
Families often avoid accountability because it feels disloyal or emotionally risky. But the absence of accountability is far more damaging than having it.
When people aren’t held accountable:
- standards become optional
- performance drops
- resentment rises
- competent people disengage or leave
- conflict becomes the enforcement mechanism instead of governance
The best families build cultures of accountability, not cultures of blame. That usually requires objective processes and, often, respected non-family leaders or advisers who can enforce standards without old family emotions contaminating the conversation.
Strategies and Solutions
The goal is not bureaucracy. The goal is to remove ambiguity so the family and the business can function without constant friction.
Start with foundational clarity
Before defining business roles, the family needs to recognise the informal roles operating at home: patriarch, matriarch, rescuer, scapegoat, heir apparent, rebel, peacemaker, favourite, and so on.
These roles unconsciously transfer into the business unless they’re identified and neutralised. Founders especially cast long shadows. Unless that shadow is deliberately reduced over time, the rising generation remains dependent and constrained.
Use objective systems to define roles
Define roles by business function first, not by family rank.
Write the roles the business needs, then match people to roles based on capability. If nobody inside the family has enough capability, hire externally. Otherwise the business will hold itself back to protect feelings, and the commercial cost will eventually become unavoidable.
Make accountability legitimate and consistent
If the family struggles to be objective, use non-family authority figures:
- advisory board chair
- external HR specialist
- independent director
- trusted adviser
Their job is to set expectations, run reviews, facilitate difficult conversations, and model accountability by also holding owners and leaders to their commitments.
Set clear rules for family employment
A Family Member Employment Policy should cover:
- entry criteria and required experience
- qualifications needed for senior roles
- probation and training requirements
- performance expectations and review cadence
- promotion criteria
- exit and termination pathways
- reporting lines that avoid direct parent-child supervision where possible
This protects both the business and the family member from being placed into roles where they are likely to fail.
Put boundaries around spouses and partners
A Spouses and Partners Policy should clearly state:
- what involvement is welcome
- what is not appropriate
- what channels should be used to raise concerns
- what interaction with staff is allowed or not allowed
This prevents well-intentioned interference from becoming a flashpoint.
Five practical rules families can live by
- Separate family and business decision-making forums
- Define roles by business needs, then appoint the best person
- Use governance to depersonalise decisions and enforce standards
- Build a culture of contribution and capability, not entitlement
- Communicate early and regularly to stop assumptions becoming “truth”
Closing thought
Clear roles and responsibilities are not about restricting family members. They are about releasing people from uncertainty.
When everyone knows the boundaries, authority becomes legitimate, accountability becomes fair, and the business stops being a battleground for family dynamics. The healthiest family enterprises don’t avoid structure — they use it to protect relationships, performance, and long-term continuity.
Taken from the up coming book:
Making Sense of “Family Business”
(60 Common Causes of Family Business Conflict, and how to deal with them)
