Abstract
This article develops a greater understanding of family business succession as a process taking place within emergent conversations. Based on a real-time qualitative study of an owner family’s conversations during succession and Bakhtin’s notion of the ‘utterance’, three dimensions of dialogic transformation are elaborated: the role of differences during conversations, the role of multi-voiced conversations and the role of listening during conversations. When these dimensions are viewed together, they contribute to current family business research by emphasizing the need to better understand the present moment during succession conversations. We are conceptualizing the present moment as a ‘living moment’, as a reminder of the once-occurring, unique and momentary transformation that can take place between family members in such encounters. Implications for research as well as practice are elaborated upon.
Introduction
When one of Sweden’s oldest family businesses – Brunnsala Ltd
1
– explored succession issues, family meetings were held to discuss this process. Prior to the first meeting, Stefan, one of the potential next generation successors, was asked what he thought would be the most important point to discuss. Stefan considered this and replied, I cannot put this into words. I have to come to terms and so things have to crystallize. I listen to the others. I don’t know what’s best to talk about. But we have to be honest with each other. And listen to each other. […] When everyone can say what they have on their minds. And when everyone is saying what he or she would like to say, then I hope that we will find out. That it will crystallize, because if no one sees each other and if no one says anything then you cannot listen and in that way nothing will happen. (Stefan, interview)
Stefan reminds us that moving forward in the succession process requires family conversations. During such meetings, family members listen to each other and so, their future will slowly comes into being in an emerging process during which they eventually decide upon a course of action. This is referred to as a ‘process of crystallization’. In this article, we explore family conversations during succession, and the crystallization process to which Stefan refers. From this departure, the purpose is to develop a greater understanding of family business succession as a process taking place within emergent conversations. Towards that aim, the focus of the article is on the lived experience of the ‘doing’ of succession rather than the outcome of the process.
A number of studies have emphasized the need for communication during succession. These can be placed into one of three broad categories: the first focuses on the role communication plays in facilitating succession planning (Bigliardi and Dormio, 2009; Dyck et al., 2002; Sharma et al., 2003). In this stream of literature, communication is identified as a means in the planning process, where notions such as ‘good conversations’ are introduced as a way of making succession possible (Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods, 2002b). A second stream focuses on the regularity of family meetings aimed at creating long-term involvement among family members (Hubler, 2009; Lansberg and Astrachan, 1994; Tatoglu et al., 2008). Here, family meetings can be a ‘formal method to give voice to the family-oriented concerns of shareholders’ (Jaffe and Lane, 2004). The third line of research focuses on the assumed roles played by shareholders and executive managers in facilitating the communicative process needed for succession planning to take root (Blumentritt et al., 2007; Chittoor and Das, 2007; Vilaseca, 2004).
Although the extant literature has directed attention to the critical role communication plays in facilitating succession (Lam, 2011; Morris et al., 1997), it has been implicitly addressed in relation to other issues such as trust, conflict, justice et cetera and seldom as an issue in itself. In other words, communication has been studied as a means to an end, but not as an issue in itself. This has led to a situation where we know the importance of communication, but how it matters and how enriching communication can be achieved are often overlooked or oversimplified. As noted by Lam (2011), while ‘some studies of family business focus on the succession process, very few have tried to understand it as an interactive, dynamic social process’ and ‘many researchers choose to devote more effort to describing the problem than explaining or solving it’ (pp. 508–509). That is why, as suggested by Morris et al. (1997), ‘greater attention in theory and practice should be given to the human element’ and the ‘complex interactions that dynamically unfold’ during succession (p. 308). This suggestion calls for approaching succession from a new perspective: one that is sensitive to the interactive and dynamic nature of succession and that focuses on the doing of succession rather than treating it as an accomplishment to be planned and assessed based on outcomes. Against this background, the aim of this study is to develop a greater understanding of the process of communication during succession.
To that end, this article is based on a real-time field study during the 18-month period when the family owners of Brunnsala Ltd focused upon succession, mainly through family meetings. The first author had the opportunity to follow this process through research activities that involved participation in meetings as well as interviews and on-site observations. To exploit this rich longitudinal field study, Bakhtin’s (1986) work on dialogue, and in particular, his notion of the ‘utterance’ is drawn upon drawing attention to the intersubjective processes of dialogue and how dialogic transformation occurs rather than a mere emphasis on the outcome of dialogue (Jabri, 2004).
Our main contribution lies in the recognition, and elaboration of the present moment during succession. In addition to previous studies that mainly focus on the outcome of succession, we contribute a processual conceptualization of how communication matters during succession and how this communication is always happening in the here and now – the present moment. We are conceptualizing the present moment as a living moment, as a reminder of the once-occurring, unique and momentary transformation that takes place between family members in such encounters. Thus, it is in this living moment that succession alternatives emerge and decisions are made. We also draw attention to how the living moment is always part and parcel of the succession context – and how this context is continuously developing with the family relations, family and business history, and the vision of the owner family.
The article is structured as follows. In the following section, previous research analysing communication in regard to family business succession is discussed. Bakhtin’s work on dialogue and his notion of the utterance are then introduced. This is followed by a discussion of methods and the empirical illustration. The findings are then presented and discussed, before the article concludes with implications for research and practice.
Family business succession and the role of communication
Already in Weiser et al. (1988), it was emphasized that ‘there are several important tasks that need to be accomplished for the transition of ownership to achieve the owners’ goal. The most important of these tasks is communication’ (p. 34). Thus, the importance of communication during succession has been emphasized. Current research has suggested that good conversations (Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods, 2002b), strengthening the relationships between family members, ‘may even play a greater role than skills or education’ for a successful succession to take place (Tatoglu et al., 2008: 160). It has also been found that enriching communication across generations can enhance commitment to the succession solution (Janjuha-Jivraj and Woods, 2002a). Exploring succession as a one-off event is inappropriate; thus, an ongoing dialogue has been emphasized for sustaining family inheritance (Jaffe and Lane, 2004). In this dialogue, communication can foster a ‘collaborative orientation’ and a ‘family point of view’ regarding how the owners can jointly meet their yet unknown future (Sorenson et al., 2009: 239). Different governance mechanisms, such as family councils, have been identified as a formal method for making such communication possible (Hubler, 2009).
Succession is one of the most difficult strategic issues for a family firm to manage (Chua et al., 2003; Ibrahim et al., 2001) as business founders, successors and executive managers find it difficult to discuss (Hubler, 2009). Succession is often an emotionally complex situation (Motwani et al., 2006) as it relates to those questions close to our heart, such as family relations, identities, work and future wealth. That is why, even though family members can work in proximity on a daily basis, succession conversations tend to be avoided and the very subject itself is almost taboo (Lam, 2011). In sum, succession is a complex issue because of the sensitive intertwinement of family and business, individual wishes and collective efforts.
As such, succession cannot be planned and implemented without recourse to conversations in which different voices are heard. Put differently, business succession needs to be ‘done’ and ‘lived’ in a way that prompts family members to ponder complex issues over a longer period of time (Haag, 2012; Kebbe, 2012). In relation to this discussion, Lam (2011) notes that ‘[o]ne common scenario is that family business members draw up and agree to a succession plan, only to find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement it’ (p. 527). Such a stance resembles the current debate and discussion on the subject and the need for further research on how to make enriching succession conversations possible.
Bakhtin’s work on the utterance
Bakhtin’s work is appropriate for developing a more dynamic and emerging understanding of family business conversations. This work has been applied in several areas in organization and management studies (i.e. Belova et al., 2008). In the field of family business and entrepreneurship studies, his work has been situated within the broader linguistic turn. Steyaert (2004) utilizes Bakhtin’s work to discuss discursive elements of entrepreneurship; Larty and Hamilton (2011) include Bakhtin in their elaboration on the possibilities of narrative analysis in entrepreneurship; and Helin (2011) draws upon his work in a study of family meetings in family firms. In relation to complex situations – such as a succession process – Bakhtin (1993) points out that while we may conceptualize life as a whole, we experience it as both given and yet-to-be-achieved. This is a process emerging in, and through, our utterances to each other.
So, what is an utterance? In short, it is any unit of language and the ‘real unit of speech communication’ (Bakhtin, 1986: 71). It can be a word, a sentence or a long text; it can actually be silence. It can be spoken or written. The utterance is bounded by the ‘change of speaking subjects, that is, a change of speakers’ (Bakhtin, 1986: 71). This means that when someone utters something, it is in response to previous utterances. At the same time, there is always an expectation of a response to follow from one’s own utterance. Of course, there is not always an immediate response, but if the utterance is understood, sooner or later a response will follow. According to Bakhtin (1986), we cannot not respond and that is why ‘[u]tterances are not indifferent to one another, and are not self-sufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another’ (p. 91). That said, a conversation is a continuously connected process of responding utterances that are inherited from the past as well as already orientated towards the future in the expectations of responses yet to come. To Bakhtin (1986), this dialogic interplay is unfinalizable in the sense that our conversations are ongoing. There is no last word and no final meaning because there will always be a future response that will take the dialogic interplay further. Thus, as long as our utterances are not totally monological, the dialogic interplay will continuously unfold.
Bakhtin (1981) also emphasizes that all utterances are ‘heteroglot’, which means that in any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions – social, historical, meteorological, physiological – that will ensure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions. (p. 428)
In short, this is how the greater contextual atmosphere influences the process of meaning-making. Since every utterance is heteroglot in nature, which means that it is subject to its own unique combination of forces at play at that time–place, it becomes a combination that is impossible to recoup. For this reason, the meaning-making process involved in the development of a dialogic understanding creates something unique, which has never before been – and never will be in the future – exactly the same. Consequently, it is not possible to repeat a dialogue. However bizarre it might sound, even an exact (in terms of words uttered) repetition of a dialogue would in fact be something new and therefore, different (Bakhtin, 1986).
In sum, Bakhtin’s work on the utterance is helpful for enabling a greater understanding of how succession is worked out in family conversations. In particular, the developmental aspects of how new meaning is always locally situated as well as co-created between people is useful for understanding how succession issues grow and develop over time in people’s utterances and responses to each other.
Methodology
The prime objective of this study is to learn more about the relationship between conversations and succession. This objective highlights the importance of a real-time, longitudinal study in which the researcher can experience how the succession process unfolds from within and the role of communication in this process. The family business chosen for this study was selected because it offered such qualities: the family was about to begin family meetings to decide upon succession and the first author followed this process over time.
Research approach and methods
A qualitative, collaborative research design was employed (Shani and Coghlan, 2014). Collaborative research practices have proven to be useful for developing practical, as well as theoretical, family business findings as they build on close connections between the researcher and research participants (Poza et al., 1998). In this case, a collaborative research design was chosen in order to open up ‘the black box’ and gain an in-depth understanding of family communication processes.
The notion of ‘withness thinking’ guided the study from the onset; thus, the study was conducted with the family members (Shotter, 2006). This way of relating with research participants resonates with Zahra et al.’s, (2014) stance aimed at encouraging scholars to become more familiar with the phenomena they are studying. This is of importance, particularly in explorative inquiries as it helps ‘to develop a deeper and more insightful understanding of the issues under consideration and reveal alternative explanations’ (Zahra et al., 2014: 495).
In practical terms, the family meetings formed the backbone of the study. The first author joined the first meeting and continued to do so for the following 18 months. This offered valuable opportunities to follow and experience how the family’s conversations unfolded over time. Because the family wanted to commence the succession process, they decided to have meetings every second month; eight meetings were held in total during the study period. Besides participation in these family meetings, a combination of methods was employed, such as participation in two planning meetings, involvement in company tours with family members, and conducting 25 interviews lasting between one and two hours. In addition to these formal field study activities, more informal conversations were held by telephone, via text messages, or during dinner and lunch; each facilitated understanding about the succession process. Table 1 provides information on the formalized activities that were undertaken during the fieldwork.
Formalized fieldwork activities.
CEO: chief executive officer.
For an overview of family members related to Brunnsala Ltd, please see Figure 1.
Ninth- and tenth-generation family members.
Analysing the material
There is currently a discussion on how to analyse qualitative data, in which the main challenge working with process-based studies is that every study is unique and context-dependent which means that ‘there is no recipe for this kind of analysis’ (St. Pierre and Jackson, 2014: 717). In this particular study, as is often the case in collaborative approaches, the continual reflection between the researcher and the research participants was crucial. This was important both for having their insights worked into the analysis but also to make sure the research participants confirmed the research findings. As an example of what this could look like, the first interview accounts were read by research participants and discussed during one of the family meetings. A total of six months later, when the following up interviews were conducted, these were also communicated and discussed during a family meeting. There were also other occasions where texts from the researcher were read and discussed by everyone involved. In this way, the generation of material and the analysis became an iterative process which ‘allowed both researchers and practitioners to share and interrogate each other’s accounts’ (Ram et al., 2013: 343).
In addition to the collaborative analysis, the researcher worked with the analysis in an abductive manner – as such, there was a continuous interplay between reading literature and engaging with field material. Such an approach is useful in the development of new understandings of a phenomenon (Brinkmann, 2014). In practical terms, this meant that all the material was first organized chronologically; thereafter, the researcher started to identify important questions that had been addressed in the field, such as the following: (1) Who am I to take over? (2) How can we create new possibilities within established relationships? (3) How can we relate to potential conflicts in a constructive way? and (4) What do I want to do in my life? Having identified these four key issues, there was a need to develop more processual understandings about how these questions were explored hence, the literature on dialogue was utilized. Bakhtin’s work on the utterance was identified as apposite; using this analysis, the researcher returned to the field material focusing upon how the conversations unfolded between the researcher participants. It was noted that even though the field transcriptions were detailed, it proved difficult to get a sense of intimacy with the transcriptions because they were too de-contextualized. Accordingly, this is why the first author returned to the recordings and listened to the material many times enabling insights regarding how the communication unfolded between participants. In sum, the analysis emerged in interplay between the researcher’s work with the material and reading of literature, as well as continuous discussions with the research participants.
The study will now be contextualized through a short description of the family, their business and the current succession situation. This will be followed by a selection of excerpts from one of the family meetings selected to offer a feeling for how the meetings and conversations unfolded. For additional utterances during the research – see Table 2.
Utterances, illustrating the role of differences, multi-voicedness and listening during succession conversations.
Succession at Brunnsala Ltd
From 9th- to 10th-generation owners
Brunnsala Ltd is a well-known coffee roaster in Sweden with a long history and about 350 employees. When this research project began, Brunnsala Ltd was owned by three brothers who had worked in the business for most of their careers. Mark, father to four of the cousins and the chief executive officer (CEO) of the group, has a great deal of formal as well as informal power in the family. Ted, the oldest brother, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. His sickness came as a shock to the family, and they had no idea how long he would live; he already had difficulties speaking and could hardly walk. Dan, the youngest brother, used to be the CEO of the farm, one of their companies, but he had to leave after a conflict with his two brothers, yet, they continue to own the company together.
The cousins in the 10th generation, whose ages range from 18 to 29 years old, are proud of the history of the firm their relatives have built. At the same time, they are worried about how they will cope with taking over the business and continuing its development. None of them are currently employed in the business or involved in any significant way. The cousins say that they ‘grew up more as siblings than cousins’ (Josefine, in the first cousin meeting) and they value their close relationships. At the same time, they have grown up with the conflict between the three brothers (their fathers), and they are afraid they will develop similarly strained relationships. For instance, Alex, one of the cousins said in an initial interview that, I don’t think they have ever understood how I felt in all this. But to live in the middle of a conflict for several years is tiring. I have been angry with Dan and Mark for a conflict I am not even involved in. And with Dad of course. Eventually I got angry with Grandfather as well because of how this is. I have had difficulties sleeping at night. Dad has been a restless soul because of this family conflict and that has spilled over to the rest of the family as well. This conflict should have been solved before we were about to enter. But it hasn’t been. I have always thought, how difficult can it be? But I have of course not told anyone about all of this. (Alex, interview)
Succession ‘rules’
Mark, who initiated the family meetings – what they eventually came to name as cousin meetings – explained in an interview before the meetings commenced that it is the wish of the family that one or a few of the cousins take over ownership in the 10th generation. The person who takes over should also be employed in Brunnsala since they believe in what they call ‘active ownership’. To him, active ownership means that the owner has an operational role in the group; they also decided that for a family member to be employed, he or she should have an appropriate university degree, at least five years of work experience with another company, and there should be a formal position available. Furthermore, they should have the social skills needed to be accepted by employees. In addition, even though they want one or a few of the cousins to take over, they do not want too many owners (Mark regards seven as too many) since he believes in what he calls ‘concentrated ownership’. Hence, they have to, during this succession process, find out who should take over but also, importantly, who should not.
Against this background, Mark said that they will start to have the cousin meetings as a way for the next generation of potential owners to come together and jointly discuss their futures in relation to being a family, but also a family that acts as owners of a firm. However, during the first meetings, Mark saw the need to make sure the cousins were aware of how ownership is to be looked upon in their family business: I think the first meetings should be focused on information given from us to them – with the message, this is how it is. This is the fundamental base. Here are the articles of association, here is the foundation [that owns part of our group] and this is how it works. That does not seem to be clear to them. (Mark, in a planning meeting)
At the same time, Mark’s set agenda was not accepted without some resistance. Judith, married to Ted and mother to three of the cousins thinks it is important to let the succession process take its own course and rhythm. She, like Stefan as quoted above, talked about the succession as a process of crystallization: These are really tough issues [the succession]. But I am happy the cousins are so positive about seeing each other and talking about it. In so doing, I think it will crystallize. It always does. (Judith, in a planning meeting)
As the cousin meetings started, these two different discourses somehow underpinned their way of looking upon succession in terms of how much they thought was already set and how much was still open for discussion, as well as how they wanted the succession process to proceed, to find out who would take over and how to make that happen.
The cousin meeting
This meeting was their second, and it took place some months after the first – which was focused on structural matters regarding how to manage the forthcoming cousin meetings. In-between these meetings, the first author interviewed everyone involved in one-to-one encounters, after which the written interview accounts were shared among all interviewees. Thus, when everyone gathered for this meeting they had read each other’s interview accounts, in which they talked about their point of view on the succession and what they regarded as most important in the process to come. The meeting was held only a few weeks after Ted passed away; the course of his illness progressed quickly and everyone had difficulties coming to terms with the outcome. The implications of his death and what this would mean for the cousins in relation to the business had not been discussed.
The meeting began with a discussion of responses to each other’s interview accounts. What immediately emerged was how much conflict worried them all. Family conflict was something they all lived with, but never discussed explicitly. It emerged that some cousins were even hesitant to join the business for fear they would also develop strained relationships. In the discussion of how they experienced family conflict, there were strong emotions in the room and the tone of voice was quiet, people spoke slowly, as if they were searching for the right words:
There is so much conflict, conflict. And then our parents’ conflict too [difficult to hear what she says since she begins to cry].
It is okay, Maria.
It feels like, if we say that we are afraid of conflict, then I have the feeling we are already in a conflict.
That makes the fear of conflict the conflict in itself. I think that is the threat. If we are not allowed to have a fear of conflict, and we should not have any conflict, then it will turn into a vicious circle. Eventually that will be the conflict, or – how shall I put it? – we will not have the courage to bring issues forward.
But we will have conflict anyhow, we’d better face it.
Yes, we’d better tackle it before it becomes a conflict.
Conflict does not necessarily mean something negative. It depends on the situation when you enter the conflict. I mean, if you have different opinions in a discussion, then this is a kind of conflict, but if you create some kind of guidelines so you know how to act …
But that is a discussion.
It depends on how you define conflict. If you think that is conflict, then I think we have very different takes on that. To me it is more like when you are in two different camps and you can hardly speak to each other. Or, you speak to each other but it doesn’t lead you anywhere.
We have to add this to our list of things to discuss in the future. We have to make an analysis of this concept.
Having decided to add conflict to their list of future discussion issues – the conversation moved to another troubling issue – the meaning of active ownership. In some interviews, it became clear that their current definition of active ownership, which means that for someone to be an owner he or she also needs to be formally employed in the business, is quite limiting. Ted’s children, who inherited their father’s shares, worried about the implications for them; would it mean that they would have to sell their shares since they are not employed in the firm? Or, since they are still at university, would this mean that they have to give up their own dreams and move back home to work in the family business to retain their shares? Everyone knows that this is one of the issues upon which Mark has a strong opinion and no one has ever challenged him. When we enter the conversation, Judith, widow of Ted, brings the issue to the table.
I think the idea brought forward by Sebastian [non-family member, and CEO of one of their businesses], that there are other ways to contribute to the business than being formally employed, is interesting. For instance, he talked about having summer or winter parties. It would also be of value if someone from the family was to work with the corporate museum, helping in the work with company values, the business history and so on. As I understand it, he is referring to an active role, which does not necessarily mean being formally employed in the business. That you act as owners in other ways.
A figurehead.
Yes, that is also active ownership. When Dad says active ownership then he equates that to being employed. When we spoke about active ownership at university, we discussed it more in terms of being active in other ways. You don’t necessarily need to be employed, but you do care and you do things. That is also a way of talking about being active. It depends on what you mean.
Yes, naturally. But then you need to know what areas you are supposed to be active in.
Of course.
You have to distinguish that from the operational role. That is extremely important [speaking louder, now in an irritated voice]. I have said that a thousand times. You are an owner once a year, at the shareholders’ council! You can of course decide on some issues that are ownership issues. To arrange a summer party and so on. But being operational, that is different. This becomes more and more important since we only have external CEOs these days.
[In a slightly irritated voice] When you say those things, you return to this all the time. You say something and that is how it is. But there are other ways as well. We know what you think but we don’t necessarily need to end up there right now. Perhaps in five years, but for the moment it is probably wise if all doors are open so that you can discuss from different perspectives. I know, for instance, that the salespeople think our history is actually very important to them. Mikael spends hours talking to them about our roots. It would be of great significance if anyone was interested in working with those things.
You can call it different things.
You are right.
We can decide that when we say ‘active owner’ that means to us that someone is working in some way, and you can be an operational owner when you work in the business, but when you are an active owner that means you work with everything around the business, but you are not employed in it.
The idea of active ownership is one of the most important principles for Mark. When the meeting commenced, Mark had a clear-cut and fixed idea of what active ownership meant. What is noteworthy here is that Judith brought the issue to the table and that Josefine and Jennifer push their ideas through, which they have never done before. When Josefine tells her father to stop offering them his predefined opinions, she seems to be tired of these fixed meanings that leave no opportunity for other ways of understanding what active ownership can mean. She also questions her father’s authoritative voice when he talks about ‘how it is’. As the meeting proceeds, different notions are discussed in similar ways, and there is a need to find meaning in concepts that are of importance to the family in progressing the succession process.
In closing the meeting, the participants reflected upon the meeting and how satisfied they were when speaking of sensitive issues never before discussed. Even though no formal decisions were made, they were pleased that they could understand each other better than before and they had allowed new ideas to emerge regarding ownership at Brunnsala Ltd.
Succession communication – a processual outlook
From this analysis, it is possible to see how the meanings attached to some of the family’s key concepts, with regard to being a firm owner, were initially rather closed and fixed. However, during the conversations, some of the previously taken-for-granted ‘truths’ were questioned and a new understanding started to evolve. It appears that their initial monologic way of thinking and talking in relation to these concepts was replaced by a more multi-voiced understanding in which different points of views were brought to the table. Hence, it was from within their conversations – in the turn-taking between listening and responding to each other – that their work unfolded, and it appears to be from within this dialogic flow that transformational potentiality is born. Consequently, there is a need to better understand how these dialogic processes unfold, not only their results. In the following discussion, three aspects that emerged as significant to better understand how the dialogic transformation takes place will be explored. These aspects are related, yet underline different features of the dialogic processes at play. They are as follows: the role of differences during conversations, the role of multi-voiced conversations, and the role of listening during conversations.
The role of differences during conversations
What can be drawn from the conversations is how family members have differing views on aspects such as active ownership, and through conversations, these differences can be revealed to each other. This recognition stands in contrast to much current family business research where sameness and the need for shared understandings are often underlined as prerequisites for a successful succession. For instance, the key benefit of strategic planning, according to Ward (1988), is that ‘the planning process helps all managers and family members to develop a common understanding …’ (p. 115). Ward also asks, ‘To what degree should family differences be openly discussed and tolerated?’ (p. 116).
The problem with sameness is that it abolishes that which is unique. Based on a Bakhtinian approach, the idea of shared understandings is problematic in the sense that what makes us human is a ‘surplus of seeing’ – the possibility of seeing something that others around us do not see (or feel, know, understand, etc.). In our utterances to each other, we can offer those differences. It is against this background that we are always dependent on each other for a broader understanding – a fuller seeing of the world. What this brings to the fore is that differences are of great importance; when these differences come together and rub against each other, dialogical transformation occurs. Even though meanings are not always shared, the experience of being in the moment is shared. Moreover, in this moment, the family members seem to share the understanding of how this dialogical moment is shaped; they have intuition regarding how to act. It appears to be important to have a common focus in the conversations and to share a willingness to move on together. For a meaningful conversation to take place, there needs to be a shared assumption that people will try to understand each other (Garfinkel, 1967).
Jabri (2012) elaborates on the dangers of always striving towards consensus. Superficially, a unitary view enhances surface unity, sameness and homogeneity among social others. Yet, this can be achieved at a high price, namely, generating consensus of a pseudo nature, which is very likely to be short-lived. This is also emphasized by Hubler (2009), who notes that ‘[t]he traditional methods and forms for creating unity include “compromise” and “giving things up”. I encourage families to set aside such notions. When people compromise and give things up, they end up being frustrated and unhappy’ (p. 256). This resonates with these findings, in that a shared understanding would ultimately mean dismissing or silencing many voices among family members. In this way, shared understandings would lead to a unified authoritative voice in which the voices that do not fit have no place. Interestingly, one of the few family business studies focusing on family meeting processes per se notes that ‘the effectiveness of family meetings is not found in simply generating consensus around a set of family beliefs, but in creating a forum for processing individual beliefs’ (Habbershon and Astrachan, 1997: 37–38).
The role of multi-voiced conversations
As difference is important, how can people’s differences be offered to each other? From this study, one key aspect that emerges is the multi-voiced or polyphonic nature of the succession process. It is when people are giving voice to their concerns, hopes, dreams and struggles that differences are played out. For example, in their discussion of conflict, Adam, in his request for guidelines, seems to believe in having a script so that people will know how to behave when conflict arises. This is in contrast to Jennifer’s utterance that: ‘[conflict] depends on how you define it (italics inserted)’, so revealing her own views upon the subject as she reflected on the notion and its implications. It is here where Olivia comes back by declaring yet another perspective on conflict, in that she seems to believe that it is something they cannot solve immediately. In this multi-voiced way of reasoning about conflict, it seems to be acceptable that the different voices remain distinct, without the need to merge into one strong voice.
This feature of multi-voicedness is of significance in the meaning-making process since ‘meaning only reveals its depths once it has encountered and come into contact with another, foreign meaning; they engage in a kind of dialogue, which surmounts the closedness and one-sidedness of these particular meanings’ (Bakhtin, 1986: 7). Therefore, in this multi-voiced process, the importance is ‘precisely what happens between various consciousnesses, that is, their interaction and interdependence’ (Bakhtin, 1984: 36). It is in allowing people to speak out in regards to conflict, or active ownership, that the meaning of these notions can develop. One of the problems reported in previous studies is that the voice of the older generation is authoritative and ‘tells it how it is’. This is the case in this family; Mark had a firm belief of what active ownership should mean to them. In these situations, being open to the multitude of voices can be crucial both for the creative process in the family and so the younger generation can feel consulted and respected.
The role of listening during conversations
We have so far discussed the importance of allowing voices to interplay and how that can contribute to the realization of differences. But how can this lead to dialogic transformation? One central aspect in this regard is the capacity to listen. In the illustration, Josefine tells her father to stop offering them his predefined definitions of active ownership and instead, listen to the rest of the family. As she says, right now they want to continue to explore what alternative meanings active ownership might entail for them by listening to each other’s points of view. From the conversations on what conflict means to them it is possible to understand the transformational power of listening as a force that touches them in the present moment. Hence, listening is not a one-off event, but rather an ongoing relational act that occurs during utterances to each other (Helin, 2013).
In this way, just as we saw in the conversations above, the meaning of an utterance is not predefined by the speaker; neither is meaning-making a mental process that takes place entirely in the head of the listener. Rather, meaning-making is a dialogic process that occurs in the space between speaking subjects. Thus, it is a joint process by the one and the other in the unfolding of utterances. At the same time, people tend to not listen to each other when focused on talking and speaking their opinion (Shotter, 2009). However, as Stefan noted, in the initial quote in the Introduction section, it is through listening to each other that we find out what to do.
Conclusion
This article commenced by noting the need to understand the role of communication during family business succession. By developing a processual approach, focusing on succession in the making, the article contributes to a greater understanding of how succession conversations unfold between family members in which the roles of differences, multi-voiced conversations, and listening during conversations are significant. What emerges when analysing the three dimensions is the need for affording greater attention to the present moment during family conversations. As such, a processual view points towards the importance of the present moment during succession since that is when everything is happening; where utterances emerge in an unpredictable yet, dialogically shaped way, enabling transformation to occur.
We conceptualize the present moment as a living moment, as a reminder of the once-occurring, unique and momentary transformation that occur between family members in such encounters when they are listening and responding to each other. Thus, the living moment is the moment of movement where as yet unknown succession alternatives can be voiced, listened to and elaborated upon. During this moment, a co-creation process occurs in which succession issues can be dealt with through the interplay of voices. Just as previous research has emphasized that every family business succession faces unique concerns and needs, where no ready-made recipe can easily be implemented due to the dynamic and complex nature of the situation (Kebbe, 2012), this study contributes with a greater understanding of why this is the case. This contribution has implications for family business research and practice.
Implications for research
The recognition of the living moment illustrates why communication cannot be treated as an add-on during succession – something to make the process run smoothly. That is why we have to question the analogy of succession as a relay race under the ‘passing the baton’ metaphor (Dyck et al., 2002). Even though this metaphor emphasizes the role of communication, it departs from the assumption that the succession process should be undertaken as quickly as possible, with the role of communication simply to make the passing of ownership swift. To the contrary, this study shows that it is in communication that succession is happening and that it can be of importance to let communication take time, as people are discussing strategically important and often emotional questions.
The shift in focus from communication as an enabler, to communication as a driver, for transformation in itself points towards the importance of understanding the context in which communication occurs. The need for contextualizing research is not new; however, much research still uses contexts that can easily be operationalized (Welter, 2011) meaning that much of what emerges as important here- the social atmosphere, the family relations and history- would not be included. Against this background, there is a need to approach context differently. Reflecting Zahra et al. (2014), we find that there is no context out there as a given, and context boundaries cannot be drawn a priori. Rather, what we can see is how context and succession work are intertwined, which means that succession work is also context-shaping in itself. Thus, the context is as dynamic and complex as the succession process itself (Kebbe, 2012).
This study also has methodological implications. The findings, in which processual and dynamic dimensions of succession have been elaborated upon, were possible because of the research approach which allowed the researcher to explore succession from within. Furthermore, because the conversations are emergent, the research approach must also be emergent. In order to continue developing this kind of knowledge, there is a need to develop such research methods. A contemporary issue being that many qualitative studies do not differ greatly from quantitative research as they are based on qualitative positivism. As such, they use ‘non-quantitative methods within traditional positivistic assumptions about the nature of the social or organizational reality and production of knowledge’ (Prasad and Prasad, 2002: 6). As a consequence, the processual dimensions, such as how context is continuously being re-shaped, cannot be revealed. Therefore, what is needed are ‘further longitudinal process studies covering different contexts’ as well as studies that are sensitive to how contextualization continuously takes place (Zahra et al., 2014: 495). For instance, research approaches where ‘[r]esearchers work with research participants from within conversations to explore how we ongoingly interpret, understand, and relate with others and our surroundings’ would be useful (Cunliffe, 2011: 658). For that, more collaborative and ethnographic approaches that enable researchers to get closer to the lived experience of succession in the making are needed.
Implications for family business practice
First, we question arguments that turn family conversations into something that ‘is’ or ‘is not’. Thus, arguments such as those found in the literature, which claim that succession planning does not succeed because of a lack of communication, or that a lack of communication promotes resistance to succession (see, among others, Handler and Kram, 1988), need to be reconsidered. Although we understand intuitively what is meant by this phrasing, it is nevertheless an unfortunate manner of speech. To address communication in stark terms limits it to something that is either/or; either you communicate or you do not. This reduces a complex social phenomenon to something simple, which does not need to be better understood, because from this perspective the solution is simply to set up a meeting, ask people to start talking to each other, and everything will be resolved. Thus, no further effort is needed to ensure enriching conversations happen.
However, recognizing that family conversations take place in a living moment changes how communication is considered. From this stance, the question becomes first, whether the conversations are enriching for the family members. One recommendation, from this point of view, is not only to plan what issues to address with regard to succession, but also to think critically about how it is possible to make conversations enriching. In the Brunnsala family, by way of example, they closed the meeting by reflecting on how they had talked to each other in new ways and how they felt about this way of communicating.
Second, it is important to allow for an emergent communication process during succession. It is in this evolving way of relating to each other that not previously thought about issues and perspective can develop. From this point of view, traditional stage models with predefined steps that still inform succession planning need to be used with care and consideration given the implications for stunting conversations. The problem being that they build on predesigned steps and the assumption that family members should develop shared views. However, this way of working can impose monologic forces which can hinder the possibility for dialogic transformation to evolve. Taking into consideration that succession is a complex issue, in which no predefined answers and alternatives can be sketched out, it is important to allow for a more incremental succession process to occur. As noted by Sorenson et al. (2009), ‘[d]ialogue is typically not tied to immediately judging, weighing, or making decisions’ (p. 240). Rather, as they propose, dialogue enables family members to ponder larger issues over time. In such an emerging approach the complex issues can be worked out incrementally.
Third, and related, succession conversations take time. This has been argued many times (Lambrecht, 2005); it is not a fixed time process. Our study points towards the importance of making succession a long-term commitment, if possible. As a way to allow succession to unfold over time, Haag (2012) suggests re-thinking the idea of succession from something to take over, which alludes to a one-off event, to succession as ‘being part’, which emphasizes a collaborative process over time. Even in situations of uncertainty and ambiguity, to allow the process to take time is crucial, because that can widen the possibilities so that every utterance has the possibility to open up avenues, activities and connections previously unnoticed (Chia and Holt, 2009).
Limitations and directions for future research
As has been shown, family dialogues are a complex phenomenon. This study is based on succession conversations in one family. More in-depth illustrations focusing on succession in the making, from several families and with different succession contexts, would further our knowledge base. There is also a need to continue to bring in theories that can cater to an enriched understanding of the complexity of communication processes. In line with Dawson and Hjorth (2012), who focus upon the usefulness of narrative approaches to family business studies, it would in particular be useful to elaborate on frameworks that are sensitive to the processual dimensions of family business communication. We are convinced that such studies can form part of a new web of research aimed at promoting a better understanding of this complex and dynamic issue that enterprising families continue to face.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.