The dynastic family business remains the exception

The brutal death of Edouard Michelin, end of may, noted us with force that the estate is not only the Achilles heel of family businesses but it is a real test to overcome and succeed insofar as this succession is not in most cases organized for them. At most transforms society in anonymous society Executive Board and supervisory board, or even in société en commandite par actions.

The question of the succession, but could more generally say the generational transition, is the major concern of governance that the leader in service must resolve. All the more sensitive issue is the Gordian knot between two fundamental dilemmas. On the one hand, the company and the family, two worlds that contain each of the needs, goals, life, values and beliefs that their own. On the other hand, individual-actor and the family community to satisfy a balance between their needs and their respective interests. Balance all the more fragile to create that there has been in recent years a growing distance between the individual player and the family community which results in a reduction of family ties and the affectio societatis.

These dilemmas fully justify the role of the family Council as an organ of governance of the family in family businesses. It is within that must be led and led the process of succession in the company. The estate must be considered as an act of planned management, i.e. a process composed of steps and events which ranged in time and therefore require a preparation, a proactive approach which lead to the development of a "transmission plan." Decision-making perspective, the transmission is therefore an essential strategic character.

The transmission of power and the property is but rarely prepared as an act of management, unusual, but inevitable. The subject is rather too often taboo, sometimes dramatic. The psychological dimension often outweighs the rational dimension. It is in the Charter family or family Pact, drawn up by the family Council, that should be drafted the plan transmission. The Charter is first and foremost and above all a family communication process. It is an exercise in self-regulation, insofar as it is the family which freely decided to develop it to alleviate the difficulties related to the transmission. It is a good organization that allows a better tax optimization of the transmission of heritage, such as generational breaks that avoid that the State does takes several times the tithe. The family Charter can, from this point of view, be complemented by a shareholder Pact, the offering of tax benefits from the provisions of the Act, Dutreil.

But the transmission of the property and heritage is not necessarily the major difficulty. The real difficulties and issues of a successful transmission are at the level of transmission of power.

It is, indeed, to succeed the transmission of "social capital" in the words of Professor j. L.. Arregle. Concept that significantly expands to "familiness" of the Anglo-Saxons, translated in a way more or less pleased by "familiarisme".

The family business is to combine two social capital, on the one hand, that of the company through its exchange relationships with all of its stakeholders, employees, suppliers, customers, creditors...(is - this not Michelin who among the first dedicated the place and role of the client) ; on the other hand, the family by the body of knowledge, know-how and practices to its members but also by the collective knowledge that represents the set of social values, beliefs and behaviours by the family group.

It is the overlap which allows to understand and explain the competitive advantages and the best performance of family businesses and more when they are eponymous. When the power is transmitted to a non-member of the family but in a review that remains family, it is the family Council to ensure the maintenance of social capital. A recent survey (1) indicates that 74 of family businesses have not family Charter or shareholders Pact defining the rules to be observed in the relationship between the members of the family and other shareholders and the company; 81 have no family Council.

Thus, so paradoxical, the family business draws its strength from its commitment to sustainability, its leaders take the specific model it represents, want to keep it, but also means few are implemented to prevent and manage conflicts and perpetuate the family structure. The dynastic family business remains the exception.

These some survey results should encourage more never leaders owners family to remember what companies has. Detoeuf wrote in 1986: "the future for a President, it is the luminous day where he will withdraw cases and will give his estate to one of his sons." Indeed, it will succumb to the task because his sons are insufficient and because in substance it will believe never that, whatever it is, can do as well as him. (2)