emotional attachment

Hello so for another piece of reflection and looking back to all our cases and topics (succession, leadership, gender, etc.) I feel there is one common theme. Emotional attachment. Many people concur that when doing business all forms of emotions should be eliminated from the equation to make the most sound decision. However, from what I have learned over the course of this semester is that emotion is what drives the family business. Emotion is the reason why the first generation leader begins his business. Usually the need to create a business springs from a need to feed the family as we saw from the Levy and Tai- Po case. And then as time passes the first generation owner sees the business as a child where he must nurture it and enable it to grow. In fact if there was no emotional attachment involved the owner would probably have no interest in the business at all.

But when does emotional attachment become deadly? From what I’ve learned things get tough when the first generation owner needs to pass on his business to the next generation. As we saw in our last MICA a weak Roger was just not ready to let go of his business and just assumed power of the company. Even in the case Luciano mentions how Roger just does not want to let go of his authority and is constantly interfering. In the Tai- Po case David’s family did not really want to sell the business despite the turbulence the company faced because it was part of the family. I think in regards to the second generation there is a different sort of emotional attachment, children usually have memories and see the company as part of who their father or mother is rather than fully understanding it which is why they might sometimes reluctantly take control of the business (to keep the legacy).

I think emotions is just a big part of the family business and I think emotions can be manipulated in a positive way for the second generation owners especially in regards to succession. I think the only case in which I read of a child being involved in the business at a young age was the Harilela case where his son was always actively involved in whichever way appropriate for his age. In the Tai-Po case a sudden death caused him to come back and take charge and in the Levy case Roger needed a successor. But for both Tai- Po and the Levy case I noticed that the children were not really involved with the business until they were forced to do so. I know that it is important for the second generation to make their own mistakes before entering the business but I do think that first generation owners should have their children involved in a business at a young age just so they can get a feel of what they could possibly inherit one day. I think it is important for first generation owners to always speak of the business to their young children at home and maybe have them work there while they are in high school just so their emotional attachment towards a business is not to view the company as a sort of heirloom.