Essay: Transforming a family business into a corporation

This chapter critically analyzes the various findings and arguments presented by scholars regarding the challenges often encountered when transforming a family business into a corporation. It begins by identifying the specific challenges that are commonly witnessed in the course of the transformation. By identifying these challenges, the researcher intends to inform the readers about what they should expect whenever they wish to change the nature of their family enterprise. It also identifies the specific difficulties that are widely stumbled upon during the training programs intended for imparting information relating to the new company goals, expectations, and obligations. The identification of the specific challenges ensures that the readers are well versed with what they might encounter in the acquisition of knowledge pertaining company goals, expectations, and the owners’ obligations.  This chapter further identifies the various communication problems relating to role confusion, emotions, political divisions or other relationship issues often faced by the parties to a family business. It also attempts to determine whether there are any clashes of ideas regarding the need for a change of strategy on planning, selling, closing or walking away from a family business. It concludes by proposing the most appropriate strategies for overcoming these challenges.
2.2. What are the challenges encountered when transforming a family business into a corporation regarding family succession?
2.2.1. Death or resignation of members
Based on a study conducted by Rothwell (2010), the death of any member of a family business is one major problem that may hinder continuity or any growth plan. Citing the example of Lehman Brothers, Rothwell (2010) argued that the demise of a partner to a family business, especially an active member, increases the workload to the remaining members. Rothwell (2010) disclosed that the death of Robert Lehman in 1969 after working for the family business for about 44 years brought several managerial and operational gaps. According to Rothwell (2010), Robert Lehman was the patriarch and one of the most active members of the firm, and his death left no member who could fully fill his position. In a different perspective, Gilson (2010) argued that Robert’s death, coupled with a lack of a suitable heir from within the Lehman family left a gap in the company.
According to Molly, Laveren & Deloof (2010), approximately one-third of enterprises in Europe are transmitted to the next generation in a decade. In Molly, Laveren & Deloof (2010)’s view, this illustrates that a large number of family businesses change hands each year, from one generation to another. However, analysis conducted by Molly, Laveren & Deloof (2010) established that about one-third of family businesses survive into the subsequent generation whereas about 10% to 15% live on to the third generation. Based on these findings, Molly, Laveren & Deloof (2010) concluded that the above figures clearly illustrate that business transfer, especially those that are family-owned encounter challenges during succession.  Molly, Laveren & Deloof (2010) argued that family business successions constitute one of the thorniest steps in the life cycle of a family company that merits proper focus. In support of these arguments, Villalonga & Amit (2006) found out that there is extensive evidence of a change in the performance and debt rate of family firms after an intergenerational ownership transfer took place.
In a different perspective, Sraer & Thesmar (2007) found out that there are both positive and negative effects of succession on companies’ financial structures. More notably, Sraer & Thesmar (2007) established that when family firms change hands from one generation to the next, they usually become less willing to draw debt financing because of a reduced willingness to take risks. Sraer & Thesmar (2007) disclosed that there are two models of family business orientations. One of these orientations is that which comprise family businesses that serve the family (family orientation) whereas the other group is composed of family firms where the families work for the interests of their businesses (business orientation). In Sraer & Thesmar (2007)’s view, family-oriented firms are more unwilling to use risky external sources of capital because relying on them could dilute family control. In a similar way, Kim (2007) indicated that descendants habitually have a lower willingness to take risks compared to their parents. In these situations, the descendants have a more preference for wealth preservation rather than furthering wealth creation. As a result, they try to keep away from a highly leveraged capital structure. Furthermore, Kim (2007) argued that the unwillingness of many owners of smaller family companies to use a more leveraged capital structure is as a result of the family’s craving to transfer a healthy company over numerous generations. This is often focused on safeguarding the family’s name and the brand name created by the founder. For these reasons, the higher risk avoidance and the lower readiness to attract debt financing diminish the available financial resources for subsequent-generation family firms. This is consistent with the stagnation point of view.
According to Poza (2009), when family firms are transferred from one generation to another, their goals change, a situation that can result in stagnation. In Poza (2009)’s view, the first generation family firms are usually more business oriented than are subsequent generation companies which are more family oriented. More importantly, firms with a business orientation have a higher ability to grow. Similarly, Phan & Butler (2008) found out that successive generations’ entrepreneurial orientation tends to reduce and bring about family orientation because inheritance and stability concerns become the business’s key drivers. For these reasons, it is palpable that this stronger family orientation can hinder the firm’s prosperity because it often results in a lower enthusiasm to grow.
2.2.2. Work ethic
Discussion presented by Daniell (2011) revealed that as a family-owned business is transferred across generations, the work ethic tends to vary considerably. In Daniell (2011)’s findings, the younger generations are usually less prepared to spend the quantity of time their predecessors invested in the firm. This may cause considerable stress and conflicts between the generations, and also gratuitously delay the changeover of both management and ownership.
2.2.3. Harsh Economic environment
A discussion presented by Moon & Rhee (2012) revealed that a difficult economic environment is one of the challenges often encountered by the owners of family businesses who wish to change their enterprises into corporations. In support of this argument, Moon & Rhee (2012) stated that apart from the death of one member of the Lehman family, the company was also a victim of the harsh economic situation of the early 1970s. In Moon & Rhee (2012)’s discussion, by 1972, the company was going through hard times. The unbearable economic environment necessitated the bringing in of Pete Peterson into the management team of the family business in 1973. Pete Peterson was at the time the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bell & Howell Corporation. Based on the findings presented by Auletta (2015), Peterson was brought in to salvage the firm from collapse. Auletta (2015) found out that during the leadership of Peterson, the Lehman Brothers company acquired Abraham & Co. in 1975. After about two years of the acquisition, the company merged with the venerable but besieged, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., to form the Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc., which became the fourth-largest investment bank in the USA. A study conducted by Williams (2010) found out that Peterson remained as the Chairman and CEO of the firm for over five years. According to Williams (2010), Peterson changed the status of the firm from making momentous losses to five uninterrupted years of record profits. More notably, the company emerged as one with the highest returns on equity among the many others in the investment-banking industry in the USA.
2.2.4. Wrangles among the membership and the management
Research conducted by Gordon & Nicholson (2010) established that hostilities between the members and management of a family business are a serious challenge to the continuity and smooth running of the enterprise. According to Gordon & Nicholson (2010), the operations in a family-owned company are often grievously complicated by frictions that arise from rivalries involving different members of the family. Gordon & Nicholson (2010) clarified that unless the management faces up to their feelings of antagonism, the business will suffer and may even collapse. For these reasons, members of every family business must learn to work together regardless of their peculiar opinions.
In affirming Gordon & Nicholson (2010)’s arguments, Lannoye (2015) disclosed that in the early 1980s, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. was rocked by serious hostilities between the firm’s investment bankers and traders who were responsible for most of the company’s profits. According to Lannoye (2015), the disputes prompted Peterson to promote Lewis Glucksman, who was the firm’s President, Chief Operating Officer, and former trader, to become his co-CEO in May 1983. Interestingly, Glucksman introduced some managerial changes with the intention of bolstering the success of the company. However, the changes increased tensions within the company. The situation became worse because apart from the disputed Glucksman’s style of management, there was a recession in the markets. These resulted in an internal struggle for power that eventually led to the ouster of Peterson. This left Glucksman as the only CEO of the company. According to Lannoye (2015), many bankers were upset bankers due to the power struggle. As a result, the bankers left the company. Lannoye (2015) further argued that Lehman Brothers had an exceedingly competitive internal atmosphere which became dysfunctional at the end. As a result, the company suffered under the squabbles, a situation that necessitated Gluckman to sell the firm.
In a different perspective, Longenecker, ‎Petty & Palich (2016) confided that when the ownership of a family business changes from one generation to another, or when members of a different generation are admitted into the existing membership, there are various operational and managerial modifications that occur. According to Longenecker, ‎Petty & Palich (2016), when the family intends to transfer the legacy of their enterprise to the next generation, the business’s ability to generate and sustain the family’s wealth may be weakened.  In most instances, family firms cannot connect their strategic planning strategies to life cycle changes. Sometimes family enterprises members feel restricted psychologically to the founder’s intentions and ideas.  In this instance, the business is not administered rationally. As a result of the feeling of restriction, Longenecker, ‎Petty & Palich (2016) argued that many members feel anxious whenever they consider they are violating the founder’s main business ideas. According to Ward (2006), one of the disputes that may arise is the failure of the owner to let go and belief on the other family members to carry on successfully.  Interestingly, Ward (2006) disclosed that many owners consider a family business a very sensitive property that should not be entrusted to any generation or individual. This create discontentment as some few individuals are seen to dominate the business. This creates disputes amongst the members. Ward (2006) argued that when the usual managers of the business die or become incapacitated unexpectedly, the other members or generations find themselves unprepared to own and run the company.
2.2.5. Nepotism
Arguments presented by Jones (2013) disclosed that one of the main problems in family businesses is usually linked to the human resource. According to Jones (2013), numerous family firms encounter difficulties relating to attracting and retaining their employees. In Jones (2013)’s view, although a majority of family and non-family employees may be very committed to the fate of the enterprise, it is hard to run away from the vicious circle of relatives working there. This is because members of the family are part and even the owners of the company; therefore, they would rarely be replaced.  In most cases, they are likely to get the executive positions, a situation that prevents more competent third parties from holding the better positions in the organization. On the contrary, Poutziouris, ‎Smyrnios & Klein (2008) argued that nepotism reduces employee turnover and enhances continuity of family businesses since specific managerial values are passed down from one generation to another. In a different perspective, Snippet (2009) found out that nepotism brings financial benefit to family businesses. According to Snippet (2009), this is true because hiring family helps to reduce employee’s health insurance costs. In Snippet (2009)’s view, family members are less interested in salaries and benefits from the business unlike non-family employees whose key interest is to earn a living for their labor.
In support of these arguments, Ward (2006) argued that the domination of managerial positions by family members makes it hard to make changes when the business requires them. According to Ward (2006), if a family business is influenced by nepotism, there is often a preference to employ family or friends regardless of merit for the position. In these situations, what matters the most is loyalty. For these reasons, the best and most qualified do not secure positions of responsibilities. Recruitments will often be done in a manner that first considers family members and only then, the other faithful employees. In these instances, family businesses lack the skills necessary for their transformation into corporations. This may result in the failure of the transformation processes. Notwithstanding the arguments opposing nepotism in family businesses, Collins et al. (2012) reiterated that denying non-family members from securing positions in the enterprises will help prevent conflicts that might arise due to non-family employees treating family unkindly. Be that as it may, Ward (2006) argued that in some instances, nepotism enhances performance, stability, and long-term commitment. According to Ward (2006), the assurance that only family members will hold prime positions in the business will motivate everyone in these ranks thereby making them to be more productive.
2.3. What are the difficulties that are faced during the training program when it comes to the information relating to the new company goals, expectations, and obligations?
Studies conducted by Mellen, ‎& Evans (2010) established that family members who own and run businesses might have divergent personal and company goals and values. Mellen, ‎& Evans (2010) argued that the divergent goals and values are mostly prevalent across generations. In Mellen, ‎& Evans (2010)’s view, many family business owners, especially the founders are often not good at articulating and disseminating their enterprises’ vision or long-term goals. Furthermore, in many instances, business successions, and financial planning are considered an ineffective use of trading time. According to Mellen, ‎& Evans (2010), older generation members of family businesses believe that the times spent in business successions and financial planning should be spent doing crucial trade processes. As a result, when the business ownership changes through the generations, the visions of the owners tend to be lost or become blurred. Furthermore, the next generation of owners will find themselves without focus since they lack a plan for the future. In support of these arguments, Lannoye (2015) argued that many family businesses encounter challenges associated with lack of common business goals and values. Furthermore, many of the members of family businesses lack the interest to adhere to the set business goals and values.
Based on a discussion presented by Poutziouris, ‎ Smyrnios & Goel (2013), a majority of family businesses are patriarchal. In Poutziouris, ‎ Smyrnios & Goel (2013)’s findings, these businesses are often run by powerful figures in the families, most of whom are the oldest generation. These people are often incapable or unwilling to let go. On the other hand, Poutziouris, ‎ Smyrnios & Goel (2013) discovered that the members of the new generation, who are often armed with business degrees, normally have the latest managerial knowledge. The new generation sees an urgent need to collect the knowledge possessed by the older generation and disseminate it across the company. At the same time, the new generation feels that there is a need for reconciling what they learned in school with the elder generation’s mode of management. This often creates disputes since the old generation is often adamant to admit modern managerial skills at the cost of their normal way of running the enterprise. Although Poutziouris, ‎ Smyrnios & Goel (2013)’s idea may be true, Zhang & Zhang (2014) tends to believe that most employees in family businesses want to advance within enterprise. Unfortunately, in most family-owned businesses there are often limited opportunities for advancement because family employees occupy almost all leadership positions within the company. Due to the lack of opportunities for individual advancement or to take on leadership roles, many talented and ambitious employees are forced to move on. Alderson (2011) agreed with Zhang & Zhang (2014)’s arguments but asserted that it is not only due to lack of opportunities that employees leave family businesses. According to Alderson (2011), another problem causing employees’ turnover is that non-family employees leave because they feel as if they are frequently in the middle when a family dispute breaks out.
Besides education differences, Poza (2013) reiterated that in most family businesses, the parent generation applies pressure, either explicit or implicit on how much can be spent in the enterprises. According to Poza (2013), in some cases, even the most necessary expenditures cannot be made because the finances are restricted as the family member tries to reduce costs. For instance, the ceiling on the amount of money that can be used without permission from the other member of the family may be too low for the situation confronting the business. Poza (2013) argued that the restriction of operating expenditures may result in missing opportunities for higher profits, such as taking advantage of a good price on stock or sales inventory. Unlike Poza (2013), Ward (2016) argued that individual financial contribution to family businesses is a hindrance to new company goals, expectations, and obligations. According to Ward (2016), in most instances, people who contributed more capital or are older in the business are believed to be those suitable for high ranks like the managers’ positions because of age or the amount of wealth they have in the business without regard to their qualifications. In such situations, skilled members or those with business minds are ignored leaving the enterprise under the control of persons who cannot develop and facilitate the realization of new goals. In a different perspective, Magistrale (2015) established that in some instances, the older or wealthier members of the family enterprise might hold up progress because they do not pay attention to other people’s opinions. According to Magistrale (2015), when some of the relatives in a family-owned business grow older, they develop an attitude of status quo. They do not like to see things change from the normal routine and are afraid of risks. As a result of this attitude, they can block growth plans in their family’s business.
2.4. What are the communication problems faced by the parties involved provoked by role confusion, emotions, political divisions or other relationship problems?
Chanlat, Davel & Dupuis (2013) argued that rank differences impede communication among the members of family businesses. According to Chanlat, Davel & Dupuis (2013), this challenge is often experienced when members of a family business approach communication as an interaction between superior and inferior parties in the enterprise. Chanlat, Davel & Dupuis (2013) opined that if this feeling exists, the junior members of the business will consider information put across by the seniors as simply commands, a condition that hinders effective communication. Furthermore, Chanlat, Davel & Dupuis (2013) disclosed that in these situations every junior member becomes unwilling to pass on negative information to the senior members and, as a result of being poorly informed, those in the higher ranks exert their powers unwisely.
On the other hand, Vries & Carlock (2010) stated that role confusion is one of the challenges often encountered by family businesses. According to Vries & Carlock (2010), many members of family businesses lack knowledge on how best to allocate duties among themselves. In many instances, the parents perceive their mature children as not old enough or fit to hold positions or even make decisions in the business. Vries & Carlock (2010) disclosed that the parents tend to treat them as young children in everything they do, therefore, monitor them strictly all the time. Similarly, siblings constantly consider each other in their particular childhood roles. As a result, the business operations end up being dysfunctional because everyone cannot see other people as they are actually in their present conditions. This may lead parents and children to assume powers over others in an inapt manner. For instance, many family businesses assume that the oldest offspring should serve as the CEOs or leaders of the next generation. Problems might arise because the oldest children may not be fit for the intended role.
2.5. Are there any clashes of ideas when it comes to changing of strategy on planning, selling, closing or walking away from the business?
As indicated by Schwass (2005), the conflicts that are difficult to evade in family businesses involve succession. According to Schwass (2005), generational transition is the highest threat to the continuity of family businesses and a vast majority of these enterprises fail to deal with it effectively. However, Schwass (2005) argued that many of these failures can certainly be prevented by appropriately and comprehensively arrangements for generational succession. Schwass (2005) found out that the lessons learned from the most flourishing family businesses all over the world are that they have considered generational changeover as a long-term process rather than a short-term occurrence. On the contrary, Kaye (2005) found out that the clashes in family businesses result from confusion because no one understands anybody else. According to Kaye (2005), conflicts arise due to confusion which generates false assumptions that are never clarified and corrected. For instance, Kaye (2005) cited an example of a situation where some members of the family propose the selling off of the company. Some of the family members may not be ready for this action, and this may outrage them. This may give way to rage and to a bitterness that simmers and corrodes and may destroy the business and even the family. Ramadani & Schneider (2013) agreed with Kaye (2005)’s arguments but stated that in every family business, there is certainly going to come a time when a member of the enterprise retires, resigns, or perhaps passes on. According to Ramadani & Schneider (2013), if the owners of a family business do not have a plan for these occurrences, then they are setting their enterprise up for failure. In Ramadani & Schneider (2013)’s view, less than 33% of family-owned businesses survive their transition from first generation ownership to the second generation ownership. Ramadani & Schneider (2013) disclosed that these failures are due to the family members not having the interest in running the business, but in most instances, it is due to the failure to create a succession plan. Based on Ramadani & Schneider (2013)’s view, a succession plan is extremely necessary to ensure that the business survives on from generation to generation.
On the other hand, Ward (2016) argued that deciding to close or sell a family business is a very complex that exposes many of the owners to disputes.  According to Ward (2016), identifying the reasons for the closure or selling and enabling every member to understand the necessity of the actions is a challenge and often causes disagreements. Besides the decisions on winding up or selling a family enterprise, Bennedsen & Fan (2014) indicated the major challenge usually encountered relates to the valuation of the enterprise. In Bennedsen & Fan (2014)’s view, it is usually hard to come up with a selling price that satisfies every member of the family. Bennedsen & Fan (2014) asserted that these disputes may result in the delay of business closure or sell, a situation that may lead to further costs in paying rents for inoperational entity.
According to Vries & Carlock (2010), many family businesses lack strategic plans that can allow every generation a chance to chart a course for the enterprises. Vries & Carlock (2010) argued that setting understandable and simple strategic plans as a family ensures that everyone has a clear picture of the company’s future. However, according to Hutcheson (2014), many of these businesses are controlled by the older members of the family thereby locking out the younger generations from understanding the future of their enterprises. For instance, Hutcheson (2014) indicated that in most family businesses, the budgeting process including the plans for change of business and the acquisition of key assets is usually a preserve of the individuals who were the founders. For these reasons, many of the younger generation are not consulted on various crucial developments in the business, a situation that usually brings dissatisfaction. Similarly, Pendergast (2006) argued that family business’ strategic plans are needed to maintain healthy and viable enterprises. Pendergast (2006) disclosed that these plans establish policies for the role of the family in a business. For instance, they provide for entry and exit policies that bind everyone in the business. Pendergast (2006) further indicated that well-designed strategic plans include a businesses’ creed or mission statement that highlights out the family’s values and key policies for the business. For these reasons, an ideal family business’ strategic plan addresses every issue that is important to the enterprise, including selling, closing or walking away from the business. Pendergast (2006) concluded that the lack of these strategic plans creates conflicts in family businesses since it breeds division and everyone will act on his or her volition. According to Pendergast (2006), lack of clear rules on the selling, closing or walking away from a family business may result in some members of the enterprise quitting to avoid accountability for their mistakes thereby leaving the family with no option but to pay for their misconducts. This may hinder the realization of the business’ growth plans. However, according to Pendergast (2006), through the creation and implementation of business strategic plans, families will avoid conflicts relating to compensation, ownership, sibling rivalry, and management control even during winding up. Notwithstanding the need for a strategic plan, Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008) argued that many family businesses encounter frequent disputes due to lack of succession plans. According to Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008), many family businesses lack plans for their future, especially in the occurrence of the death of its founders. For these reasons, Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008) argued that the death or resignation, especially of any active founder of a family enterprise leaves the remaining owners with varied options, including selling, closing or transferring it to the younger generation. Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008) reiterated that a clear succession plan will solve the founding or current generation’s concerns regarding transferring the firm. According to Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008), a succession plan outlines how succession will take place and stipulates how to know when the successors are ready and fit to carry on the business. In support of Poutziouris, Smyrnios & Klein (2008)’s assertions, Wasserman (2012) revealed that many founders of family businesses do not want to let go of their companies because they are afraid the successors are not well prepared. In some instances, the founders may be afraid to be without a job. Interestingly, Wasserman (2012) found out that more often, their heirs sense the founders’ reluctance and take on an alternative career. However, if a family business has a plan already in place to guide the succession process, the heirs may be more apt to continue in the family business. Conversely, Eckrich & McClure (2012) opined that an estate plan is a critical item for a family and its business. According to Eckrich & McClure (2012), without it, a family business will be forced to pay higher estate taxes than necessary. Eckrich & McClure (2012) clarified that a family business that has an estate plan will have its estate transferred primarily to its heirs rather than to taxes.
In a different perspective, Carlock & Ward (2010) stated that the process of designing business plans for a family enterprise is usually an uphill task. According to Carlock & Ward (2010), the effort to bring together different individuals with different skills and interests is usually challenging.  In Carlock & Ward (2010)’s view, the planning process is not easy because it demands the commitment of all family members. For this reason, the commitment of every member is a key ingredient for the business’ continuity and success. Furthermore, the successful operation and transfer of a family firm is demands the sharing of information with all family members, both active and non-active. However, many members of these businesses, especially the elderly members of the family or the enterprises’ founders sideline the younger members of the family when preparing plans for their companies. In Carlock & Ward (2010)’s view, ensuring that everyone in the family is part of the planning team eliminates problems that usually arise when decisions are made and enforced without the counsel and knowledge of all family members.
2.6. What are the best strategies to overcome these challenges?
Sorenson, ‎Yu & Brigham (2013) were of the opinion that the most effective way of overcoming challenges, especially those relating to conflicts in family-owned businesses is by clearly defining roles. According to Sorenson, ‎Yu & Brigham (2013), it is a smart idea to figure out what every member in a family-owned business is good at in respect of various aspects of the enterprise. The identification of the strengths of every member in the business will facilitate efforts of defining roles thereby preventing a scenario where each family member tries to do everything. Sorenson, ‎Yu & Brigham (2013) reiterated that unstructured responsibilities and decision-making in business creates a stressful and confusing work environment. Notwithstanding Sorenson, ‎Yu & Brigham (2013)’s arguments, Poza (2009) opined that role sharing must go hand in hand with the realization that non-family members deserve to serve in the business. According to Poza (2009), as business owners, family members should realize that every business needs a good blend of people to grow. Non-family employees bring balance to the organization because they have the ability to view the business from an unemotional perspective. Poza (2009) confided that if given the opportunity, non-family employees can offer valuable input on how to make the business better. On the contrary, failing to recognize the constructive impact non-family employees have on a family enterprise is a huge mistake.
On the other hand, Wasserman (2012) argued that the most effective way of overcoming challenges in family businesses is getting people together to accomplish the desired goals efficiently and effectively. Wasserman (2012) argued that insufficient communication at the management levels greatly impacts on the abilities to manage employees effectively. According to Wasserman (2012), it is only when the managers communicate efficiently among one another and understands the priorities and importance of the pending tasks that the allocation of work to employees and the supervision of the tasks are possible. Wasserman (2012) argued that the main problem in family businesses is the missing communication channels that cause a lot of trouble and curtails the company’s efficiency.
On the other hand, Olbrich (2010) wrote that enhancing regular communication among the members of a family business helps them to overcome the various challenges they encounter. According to Olbrich (2010), family businesses may set a formal time when the grievances of every member can be aired and be dealt with in an unemotional and professional setting. Different from Olbrich (2010)’s opinion, Leach (2016) argued that it is prudent for family businesses to have in place some formal framework for regular communication. In Leach (2016)’s view, establishing these frameworks ensures that there is certainty of how ideas and concerns of every member are transmitted. This will make every member of the business to have confidence to that their ideas or grievances will be dealt appropriately by those responsible.
Olbrich (2010) found out that family business challenges can be overcome if all parties develop positive attitudes towards each other. According to Olbrich (2010), the key recipe to realizing a successful family business is the realization by everyone involved that the success of the enterprise is paramount. In support of Olbrich (2010)’s arguments, Barling & Cooper (2008) opined that verbal communications must be more friendly and attitudes more objective. Family members working in the business must accept that the employer-employee relationship is paramount, just as they would in another business. Barling & Cooper (2008) further stated that all job descriptions must be clearly set and adhered to. Every personal problem that emanates from home should be left where it emerged when the business workday begins. Similarly, workplace issues should not be permitted to invade the home life. Barling & Cooper (2008) based this argument on the notion that if every family member accepts and abides by this peculiarity between “home” and “work,” not only will it get rid of strained personal relationships, but it will also inform other employees that, at work, the interests of the business come first.