Did you prepare your successor—or did you protect them?

By Prof. Enrique N. Soriano

In family enterprises, failure at the top rarely arrives with drama. It begins quietly—often politely—long before performance visibly declines. The handover is celebrated, the title is conferred, and the organization signals continuity. Yet beneath the surface, one critical question often goes unexamined: has leadership truly transitioned, or has authority merely been transferred?

In many family-owned enterprises, succession does not fail dramatically. It erodes quietly. The title transfers. The office changes hands. The announcement is made. Yet beneath the surface, something essential has not shifted.

The successor has inherited authority—but not yet earned leadership.

Having served on boards and advised multigenerational enterprises across Asia, I have witnessed this pattern up close. In boardrooms, the symptoms are subtle but unmistakable. A next-generation CEO speaks confidently, yet struggles to articulate long-term strategic direction. Financial results are explained, but risk exposure is not anticipated. Operational updates are detailed, but competitive positioning is vague.

What presents as confidence is sometimes concealment. Across these board discussions, one recurring dynamic emerges: a quiet but dangerous sense of entitlement. Not loud arrogance. Not open defiance. But a subtle assumption that the role naturally belongs to them—and that time alone will close the capability gap. The problem is rarely intelligence. Nor is it access to opportunity. The problem is entitlement reinforced by insufficient challenge.

When a successor grows up protected from real consequences—shielded from market discipline, buffered from financial pressure, insulated from organizational dissent—leadership muscles never fully develop. Familiarity is mistaken for competence. Proximity to the founder is confused with preparation.

But markets are indifferent to lineage. Competitors do not care whose name is on the building. Banks do not extend patience because of family history. Independent directors do not suspend fiduciary duty because succession feels delicate.

A CEO role is not a ceremonial inheritance. It is a performance mandate. Yet some successors approach leadership as an extension of comfort rather than a commitment to growth. They avoid difficult conversations. They defer hard restructuring decisions. They retain underperforming relatives to preserve harmony. They spend time managing impressions rather than managing risk. Activity replaces strategy. Presence replaces performance.

From the board’s vantage point, this is where the gap becomes most visible. The organization senses hesitation. Senior executives begin compensating quietly. Independent directors ask sharper questions. Confidence does not collapse overnight—but it gradually thins.

The founder often plays a silent but decisive role in this dynamic.

In an effort to protect their children, some founders unintentionally weaken them. They step in too quickly during crises. They override executive decisions privately. They dilute accountability to preserve relationships. What begins as love becomes limitation.

A successor who is never tested cannot mature. A leader who is never contradicted cannot sharpen judgment. A CEO who is never held accountable cannot command respect.

Entitlement rarely announces itself loudly. It reveals itself in patterns:

• Delayed preparation for foreseeable risks.
  • Overconfidence unsupported by data.
  • Resistance to independent board oversight.
  • Discomfort with external expertise.
  • A belief that tenure will compensate for inexperience.

Tenure does not equal transformation. Leadership requires deliberate discomfort—and the uncomfortable truth is this: bloodline may grant access to leadership, but it does not grant capability.

Capability is forged through exposure, discipline, and responsibility. It requires facing operational consequences early in one’s career—not only at the top. It requires independent performance evaluation. It requires directors who are willing to challenge assumptions—and founders who are willing to allow that challenge.

Family enterprises that endure across generations are not sustained by affection alone. They are sustained by standards.

The next-generation CEO must eventually confront a defining question:

Am I leading because I carry the name—or because I carry the burden?

For founders, the mirror is equally demanding:
Did you prepare your successor—or did you protect them?

For successors, the reckoning is personal:
Have you truly earned the authority you now hold?

Leadership in a family enterprise is not a birthright. It is a responsibility that must be justified repeatedly—through foresight, discipline, and courage.

In the end, the market will measure leadership objectively. The only advantage a CEO has is to measure himself first.

++++++++

Prof. Enrique M. Soriano will further explore board-level accountability and governance standards in his upcoming webinar, “Director Duties: What It Means in Practice in Family Enterprises,” on March 4 at 10:00 AM.

He will also continue examining next-generation leadership and governance themes in his Governance Masterclass at Vivere Hotel, Alabang, on March 28, 2026. For reservations, please contact Christine at +63 917 324 7216.