which must be clearly articulated. See again my earlier caveat that all elements of the big tent approach require careful, strategic orchestration.
So how does it all come together?
Back inside the tent, when a family member who does not work in the business understands that there are meaningful ways that they can engage with the enterprise, such as through a family office or business governance role, they are more likely to feel valued. Likewise, a married-in will feel included when they hear about opportunities for involvement in the family's philanthropic activities. Or, when a rising-generation member finds out about the enterprise pathway, they will enthusiastically consider the family business a venture partner they may need in the future to execute their own entrepreneurial vision.
Illustration 8 THE BIG TENT APPROACH
Whatever the exact circumstance, the big tent approach helps the full range of family members to see new opportunities to contribute and to understand the need—and expectation—to have the required skill sets to deliver optimally in a given, appropriate role. That is, they recognize the importance of being ready, willing, and capable to contribute to the enterprise. This thinking is at the core of continuity modelling.
p
RIPCC Best Practice Dimensions
The RIPCC framework is something I have stolen, but paraphrased, from a book written by my friend and colleague Professor Emeritus John Ward. But given the remarkable number of books and articles John has produced to help readers understand family enterprises, it's difficult for me even to know from which work I got the idea!
Ward didn't call it the RIPCC framework, but as I recall, this is what he referred to when answering a question someone posed about what he believes families who get it right actually do, based on his decades of work with business families. I've paraphrased the lessons that these families have taught him into these five dimensions.
The first dimension, the one that begins with R, is that the families respect the challenge: that is, families who get it right understand that functioning optimally in a business-owning family is challenging. The second dimension, the I, reflects that Ward believes the issues across families are the same, but the perspectives are different. What that means, I suggest, is that the issues facing business-owning families are fundamentally the same, but how they manage and navigate these issues will vary, dependent on the perspectives of individuals and family groups. The third dimension relates to planning. Ward suggests that those who get it right don't leave it to chance. They are consummate planners. This dimension, though not intentionally framed as such, is at the epicenter of the Continuity Canvas and will be clear in Part II.
The fourth dimension of the RIPCC framework concerns communication. Ward suggests families who get it right are those who find ways to communicate. Finally, and arguably the most important of the RIPCC best practice framework dimensions, concerns having a commitment: to the “us” in question.
Taking those dimensions and contextualizing them for the Continuity Model Generation, it is simple to argue that continuity will be significantly enhanced if stakeholders understand five things: (i) respect that it will be challenging; (ii) understand that the issues may be the same across families but people will have different perspectives; (iii) recognize the importance of developing plans for ownership, family, and the many entities that are being managed; (iv) see communication as vital; and (v) believe that continuity won't occur without a commitment, a significant commitment, to what the family is trying to achieve. That's the RIPCC in action (Illustration 9).
Illustration 9 RIPCC FRAMEWORK
Four Ps Framework
Related to the RIPCC framework, the four Ps framework is again unabashedly stolen and paraphrased from Ward's work. And again, I can't direct you to exactly which publication it came from, but somewhere in those volumes is a section that relates to these four dimensions. From his experience observing and working with all types of business-owning families, Ward suggests there are four critical priorities, all of which start with “p.” The first priority is parenting, and this is hard to argue against when you consider we are talking about families. The major contributors to the next generation, and this is really relevant for continuity modelling, are the parents, as reflected in the example I included in the earlier discussion of the big tent framework. Ward's recommendation here is that, to increase chances of harmony, optimal functioning, meaningful contributions, and other desirables, there needs to be a focus on being exemplary parents. The second “p” relates to familial process. My interpretation is that, too often, families get out of whack and forget to introduce ways to appreciate the fact that they are family. Most anyone involved in family business will agree that they are guilty of spending inordinate time talking about or being involved in the business, at the expense of their family. So, the second priority needs to be consciously and intentionally addressed by finding ways to include reminders that the family is a family. The third priority is one that receives immediate positive response whenever I share it: the imperative to put in place protocols before you need them. This refers especially to governance protocols and processes that set the expectations for now- and next-generation involvement, for example. The fourth priority is to develop a sense of purpose and understand the general and specific responsibilities of being part of a business-owning family (Illustration 10).
So, again, a lot of work and thinking has gone into understanding the priorities that a family should have. Parenting, familial processes, having protocols in place before they are needed, and developing a shared sense of purpose will individually and collectively contribute to addressing assumptions and be foundational in developing a continuity model mindset within the family.
Illustration 10 THE FOUR Ps FRAMEWORK
Four Cs Framework
The fourth framework in the familial meta-framework is cut-and-pasted from the research of Professor Danny Miller and Professor Isabel LeBreton Miller. Their groundbreaking study of long-lived family-controlled businesses (FCBs) revealed that, unlike managers of most other for-profit businesses, those of FCBs seek ends in addition to profit. As such, they are more willing to make bold decisions (i.e. commands) that sacrifice some of their personal interests for the sake of their employees (i.e. community) and larger society (i.e. connections), as well as for the long-term survival of the businesses they operate (i.e. continuity).
According to the Millers, the continuity dimension is about having a focal mission and commitment to a set of related capabilities; community concerns having in place an appropriate internal employee base to formulate and implement the strategy; connection reflects that external stakeholders and resource–providers are crucial to being adaptive and being able to access scarce resources; command captures the context of governance and leadership (Illustration 11).
While
