(Why “treating everyone the same” is one of the fastest ways to trigger family business conflict)
One of the most common causes of conflict in business families comes from a well-intentioned mistake: confusing equality with equity.
- Equality means giving everyone the same benefits.
- Equity means giving people what is fair, reasonable, and appropriate—based on contribution, capability, needs, and context.
In family business, the difference is not academic. It is often the difference between stability and a blow-up.
The Most Common Trigger Phrase
Many parents say something like:
“I love my children equally, therefore I will treat them all equally.”
As a statement about love and affection, that may be noble.
As a framework for ownership, employment, authority, remuneration, dividends, succession, and decision-making in a commercial environment, it is often disastrous.
The reason is simple: family members are rarely in the same position at the same time. They have different capacities, different life stages, different needs, and different contributions. Treating them all “equally” is often the least fair thing you can do—especially when the business is used as the vehicle for delivering that equality.
Why “Equal” Creates Conflict in a Business Context
Equal ownership can become equal paralysis
Equal shareholding and shared authority sounds fair until decisions have to be made. Unless a family has exceptionally strong, mature, and separate governance systems, equal authority commonly produces:
- stalled decision-making
- faction-building
- ongoing negotiations over everything
- power struggles disguised as “principle”
- resentment when one person carries more responsibility than another
Equal treatment ignores real differences
Families often have:
- one child deeply involved in the business for decades
- one child successful elsewhere with no interest in the business
- one child in hardship, needing personal support rather than business leadership
Treating those realities as “equal” creates predictable resentment:
- the contributor feels exploited
- the uninvolved sibling feels burdened or dragged in
- the vulnerable sibling feels entitled to benefits without accountability
Even with good intentions, the outcome is often that nobody feels respected.
A Composite Case Study: The Groggin Family
Sting Groggin, a successful founder, built a profitable engineering business. After losing his wife early, he raised three children while running the company. Each child grew into a very different adult with very different circumstances.
Christine is financially secure and accomplished, with no involvement in the business and no desire to be involved.
Shane has worked in the business for nearly two decades, underpaid, promised that “one day it will all be yours,” but without meaningful leadership development. His personal financial pressures are high, and his career options outside the business are limited.
Dauphine is a struggling single mother, dependent and unstable, in a minor clerical role that functions more like charity than employment. She relies heavily on Sting and others for ongoing support.
On any reasonable analysis, these siblings require different kinds of support and different kinds of arrangements. Yet Sting chose the simplest emotional pathway: he treated the business and future benefits as something to be split equally.
He expected gratitude. He got immediate conflict.
Christine resented being pulled into something she didn’t want and feared her siblings would damage the business.
Shane felt betrayed after years of sweat equity, expecting the business as promised.
Dauphine wanted money without responsibility and feared increased accountability once Sting was gone.
The result was predictable: each sibling felt disrespected in a different way.
This is how “equal” becomes unfair.
The Real Issue: Parents Avoiding Discretion
When families default to equality, it often signals one of two things:
- genuinely misguided thinking, or
- avoidance of responsibility—especially the discomfort of making different decisions for children in different circumstances
Many parents fear:
- being accused of favouritism
- conflict now rather than later
- facing hard truths about capability, responsibility, addiction, mental health, or dependency
- admitting that the business is not the right place to “save” a struggling child
So they choose equal treatment because it feels safe in the moment.
But it isn’t safe. It simply postpones the conflict—then enlarges it.
Why This Gets Worse After a Trigger Event
Often a catalyst drives rushed decisions: illness, a death scare, a friend’s sudden passing, or a sense of “I must finalise this now.”
Under pressure, parents may:
- finalise estate plans without consultation
- announce decisions rather than facilitate discussions
- confuse speed with responsibility
That’s how a private decision becomes a family-wide shock—and a conflict multiplier.
Strategies and Solutions
If a family wants peace and prosperity across generations, it needs to stop treating the business like a charity and stop treating the family like a corporation. Both require different rules.
Separate family-think from business-think
Keep the business “business-first” and the family “family-first” by creating separate decision forums, with separate rules.
Establish a Family Council
A Family Council gives the family a legitimate place to discuss:
- support needs
- shared values
- expectations
- fairness
- future plans
It also reduces the risk that decisions are made privately and sprung on people later as “done deals.”
Support vulnerable family members through family resources, not business roles
If the family wants to help someone, help them in a way that makes sense:
- through structured family support
- through safeguards and boundaries
- with clear expectations and oversight where needed
Using business roles as disguised welfare is corrosive. It damages the person, the culture, and the commercial future.
Keep business roles and rewards objective
Business roles must be based on:
- capability
- performance
- accountability
- real organisational needs
There are few things more damaging than placing someone in a role where they are almost guaranteed to fail. It destroys the business and the individual’s self-respect.
Use formal business governance
Major decisions belong in:
- a Business Board
- an Executive Management Team
- structured HR systems
Decision rights should be linked to role competence, not family status. There is no role called “owner” on any business org chart.
Discuss future intentions early and transparently
Succession plans and ownership intentions should be discussed and agreed well before they are needed—so the process feels fair, not sudden.
Be willing to revise thinking after honest feedback
Parents’ guilt and perceived obligation rarely produce good outcomes on their own. Families must be open to counsel from:
- family members
- trusted employees
- credible advisers
Wise fairness requires courage, not convenience.
Key Takeaways
- Equality in a family can be loving. Equality in a family business is often combustible.
- Fairness means equity: decisions shaped by context, contribution, needs, and impact.
- Support belongs in the family system; performance and authority belong in the business system.
- The goal is not “everyone gets the same.” The goal is “everyone is treated wisely and fairly.”
If your family is struggling with “fairness” debates, you may not have a financial problem—you may have a governance and expectations problem.
Book a confidential conversation to clarify what equity looks like in your family, separate business and family decision-making, and create a structure that protects both relationships and results.
Part of the series: “Family Business Makes No Sense” — Causes of Conflict and What to Do About Them.
Taken from the up coming book:
Making Sense of “Family Business”
(60 Common Causes of Family Business Conflict, and how to deal with them)
