Family Business Audiocast | Episode 73 | Peter Jaskiewicz

Available to Listen Now On: Amazon Music, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pandora, iHeart, YouTube

New Episodes Live: Subscribe to receive exclusive invitations to upcoming episodes of the Family Business Audiocast. Join us as we explore the pivotal strategies and stories behind successful family enterprises. Click to Follow on LinkedIn.

—————————————————

R. Adam Smith: Welcome to the Family Business Audiocast on LinkedIn. I am R. Adam Smith, creator of this Audiocast series. As an entrepreneur, investor, founder, investment banker and board leader the last 25 years, I'm fortunate for my many experiences within the family firm industry. A brief comment on why I created this broadcast: private companies are a passion of mine. Having grown up in a family of entrepreneurs and having engaged for two decades in deals, strategic transformations, investments and boards with an array of fascinating family enterprises, family firms and family offices, I founded this series to offer a useful platform for listeners to hear from veterans, academics and leaders in the vast family firm ecosystem.

Whether you're a family business owner, building, running or advising a family office, or just expanding your family office activities, I hope these conversations are useful and enlightening. Now it's time to turn our attention to our accomplished guests on today's episode. Welcome to the Family Business Audiocast. I am R. Adam Smith, creator of this series, and a warm thank you to our live audience today and for those listening in the future as well.

On this episode of the Family Business Audiocast, I am joined by Dr. Peter Jaskiewicz, who is one of the world's leading scholars in the field of family enterprise. He has ranked in the top 25 academics in the world, and he's also the founding director of the Family Enterprise Legacy Institute at the University of Ottawa. It's great to have Peter today. Thank you so much for joining.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Thanks for having me.

R. Adam Smith: Absolutely. So I'll talk about your illustrious background for a bit and then we'll jump right in. Peter's connection to this field runs very deep and very personal as well. He was born, in fact, into a business family in Poland, raised in Germany, and he grew up close to these realities that enterprising families eventually face, how to carry a business and a legacy across generations. That perspective became the foundation for his research career, devoted primarily to the key questions of how family enterprises can endure across generations, and why others are not so successful. This question has carried him through doctoral studies at the European Business School in Oestrich-Winkel, as well as research stays elsewhere at NCEO, IMD and IESE Business School, where he later founded and became the director of the Family Enterprise Legacy Institute, which is now based at the University of Ottawa. His research on family dynamics, succession, shareholder agreements and the rising generation is regarded among some of the most influential in the field. He has also published in Harvard Business Review and the Wall Street Journal. He has a book out called Enabling Next Generation Legacies, which he co-authored with Sabine Rau, where he interviewed dozens of major families around the world to discuss rising generation questions, and it's a go-to resource in the field today.

Recently the Family Firm Institute recognized his decade of work with global family enterprises with an international award, and today he is very active also talking about mental health in the industry, and recently worked on an innovative global collaboration with IMD, the Family Business Network and FELI, where he explored questions in the field around the emotional side of the weight of ownership and how this can be shaped successfully for the next generation. So we look forward to digging in today. Peter, really great to finally have you on the podcast. We have had several of your friends on as well, and really excited to talk to you today. Maybe just tell us a bit about your activities and focus these days and we can come into a conversation as well.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Thanks again for having me and welcome everyone who's listening to this podcast. I'm excited to be here and share some of the things that I've experienced and I'm working on. Maybe to start with, having seen firsthand the good and the bad of family enterprise, I realized early on that there wasn't that much help that we as a business family could have drawn upon. And I thought we're the only ones who have major issues and can't get help. And that directed me to becoming an academic who tries to get evidence, real evidence, to develop new best practices.

I would also call myself very much a pracademic, somebody who tries to build a bridge from hardcore academia to new best practices that really have an impact on what business families and their enterprises can do. I'm trying to focus on the most urgent topics that the global community faces, that are pressing and that are one way or another impeding them from making a difference and an impact. Just to name a few, and you've already done such a good job summarizing my work and where I'm coming from and to some extent where I'm going. I think the most pressing question that we have had over the last few years was first of all to prepare and kind of help accelerate the rising generation, which has led to the Enabling Next Generation book that you've mentioned. It became the global go-to resource for business families and was written with them and for them, including 35 major families whose businesses together do over a billion in annual sales, and they together have over a million employees. The second major topic is actually the bigger topic of governance related to shareholder agreements, which are maybe the most common legal agreements that family business owners sign.

But there is still a lot of missing knowledge on how this agreement should look, why, who should be involved, when, what is the appropriate process, and how do you actually get to good agreements if you don't have a good one, how do you make it better? So I've done major research here, which was also published academically and in the Harvard Business Review, and we've started educating business owners and their advisors on how to do shareholder agreements. Just to give you an example, a good shareholder agreement in our research improved the market value of a company by 18 percent.

A bad one doesn't add anything. So if you have a billion dollar company, knowing that it's 180 million worth more, or zero, has quite the impact. And most recently, as a third example of what I'm doing, and you mentioned it too, the topic of mental health, mental health conditions, has been an urgent topic, a depressing topic. I think a lot of business families and the population at large came out with more challenges following the pandemic, and a world that seems a bit more like a bully crisis than business as usual has led to various stressors. If you have global business operations and activities in 50 countries, you're dealing with a lot of things at the same time, and there's more and more uncertainty regarding long term investments that families make.

So here we are also currently working on best practices. First of all, creating awareness of the issue, looking at implications of the issue, and then developing best practices that can help business families and family leaders address these issues, help the individual, secure the support of the family, and enable the enterprise to continue smoothly.

R. Adam Smith: Thank you for that. Back to your upbringing in Poland, in Germany, you were part of a business family, a family business, and you later went into the industry. Can you just talk about some of those experiences you observed and how that helps you in your work today with families, in terms of the ability to connect, empathize, and bring credibility and perspective?

Peter Jaskiewicz: Yeah, this goes back to my roots. Thanks for asking, it's something I was actually very shy to talk about 20 years ago. I think most appropriate to say we have been entrepreneurs in every generation and had also family businesses. In brief, I think we started building churches in Poland, coming from Polish nobility, and later renovating churches, had a candle factory producing candles for churches.

And then after World War II, private business ownership wasn't too popular in a socialist country. So my grandfather was struggling a lot with the fact that essentially you're not anymore in a country that appreciates business ownership and individual agency and entrepreneurship. So he raised my father's generation with the idea that if you want your hard work to pay off and make a difference, you have to leave. Several members of my father's generation left Poland, including one of his brothers, who started a business in Norway, a music business focused on the sale of music instruments and a franchise of music schools, and became pretty successful. After 1990, that business grew into Eastern Germany, so to speak, after the Iron Curtain fell, back to the roots, and involved various family members, particularly in selling church organs.

Obviously, by definition, sold to the church, it has been a very profitable business, because church organs are very large and Eastern Europe lacked access to technology during the Cold War. Afterwards, because of our social capital and connections, we became pretty successful.

R. Adam Smith: We can say, since you worked on the organs, that you helped a family business keep the music going.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Oh yeah, the family business of my uncle kept the music going.

R. Adam Smith: And fast forwarding 20 years.

Peter Jaskiewicz: I was finishing my MBA when my uncle surprisingly passed, and we were thrown into a family and business crisis at the same time. I had been on the sidelines as a teenager doing internships, helping out at my uncle's, like many of my other cousins too, but not involved operationally. I couldn't understand how a very successful small to mid-sized business across several countries could, at the end of the day, be liquidated, sold, and people having major conflicts with each other for a very long time, actually for decades. I think the first reaction was, oh, this could only happen to us. So I didn't want to talk about it.

The second thing is I realized, what did I learn in my business education? It seemed pretty limited value, because everything I learned in strategy and in finance and accounting, we were doing all of these things, but still it all unraveled, and it unraveled very quickly, although we had good products, good employees, and we were very successful and had good margins. That brought me to the point that we couldn't find the right help, though I think we did have the resources to find them.

The family agreed that when lawyers got involved, things got worse, not better, because it was more about winning rather than finding a solution. And when one party wins, the other has to lose. So for me it was the point where I said I actually need to better understand these problems, and what solutions might be, because the common knowledge shared in management or business schools might not be what family businesses need to actually be successful, resilient, and able to persevere across generations. This is the pre-succession problem, which is multifaceted, especially when you're selling or have a crisis. The pre-succession phase is critical, with both practicalities, legal and communication practicalities, but also emotional intelligence and the softer side of communication and transparency.

R. Adam Smith: So it's not just one ticket of a solution for this, to prevent a succession crisis, right?

Peter Jaskiewicz: Absolutely. So you are right on. That was also my first realization. I realized that you had a charismatic founder or leader and various family members involved, but it was all based on that charismatic, amazing leader.

But there was no formalization, it was all informal. So when you remove that person from the board, there are no structures, there are no protocols, there are no plans. And like so many other family businesses, we didn't have a succession plan. Maybe why would you have one when you're in your 50s? The family was not prepared for contingencies, neither was the business. That was also my starting point, to look into governance, into the formalization, and then also professionalization, then hopefully institutionalization of governance.

So the enterprise and also the group of owners are not dependent on a single person, but they have in place what they need to move forward in case something happens.

R. Adam Smith: In a way, we've talked about succession with several elite people in the industry, like yourself. We've talked about it with Emily Bouchard, Martin Roll, Alfredo Massis, Massimo Bau, Jennifer East, you name it. Succession planning is very hard, it's very important. But also in terms of legacy, I think what we often think about is this respect for legacy. After discussing this complicated topic of succession with so many guests on the podcast, also reading more about legacy and about next gen, in today's world, there's this less spoken matter of respect, taking care of the legacy, respect for the legacy through the succession planning. And that succession planning is not just a tactical, practical thing to do, or that people tell you to do, but it's actually protecting, respecting the legacy. Shareholder agreements, governance, advisory board experts, documents, charters, communication, vulnerability, these things all can protect the legacy of the company or the wealth of the family and the company.

This is really why I think this is such a complicated topic, related to the broader enterprise, where if the family looks at the legacy as their North Star essentially, then it would force them to be more prepared.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Well, I think you're mentioning here a number of topics. Maybe I'll be a bit of a contrarian here. You mentioned a lot of standard and important governance mechanisms, from shareholder agreements to succession plans and family constitutions and so on. They're all relevant, but it all starts with the family members being excited about what they're doing, knowing about what they're doing, and wanting to stay together.

No agreement and governance solution can replace the glue of people and their commitment to something. What I see in many families is that they might have the best advice on how to set up governance. It's like building a house, but that house has no interior, or nobody wants to live there because it's pretty cold. I think it starts actually in these families much earlier, to live their legacy, to clarify what these values are, that North Star they want to follow, and to make sure they walk their talk. Unfortunately, in many cases, the people involved in the business are so busy that they actually neglect sharing why they're in it in the first place, what kind of difference they want to make in other people's lives, and highlighting also the amazing things that they and previous generations might have achieved.

So without that psychological ownership or identification of the family, and also agreeing that there is something that holds them together and is special and worth preserving, there's a danger that there will be fewer and fewer people on board moving forward. So I think it's two parts. The governance part is vital, but it has to start usually earlier, with conversations and living values and showing how this makes a valuable difference to ensuring there is also a transgenerational hope.

R. Adam Smith: On this topic of psychological readiness and emotional intelligence, and this tension between the power of the ego and wealth and the hero and groupthink, and following the energy, it creates a certain power which is present in leadership today, especially in corporate companies.

You need a real charismatic leader. There has to be respect and enthusiasm for the leadership, but that also creates a consolidation of power. So can you just talk a bit more about that softer element and how that relates also to psychological readiness?

Peter Jaskiewicz: I think this is a great point. In corporate leadership it's different, because people really moved up their way through the hierarchy over decades.

In the family business, or in a family office, it's different. It's almost like you got into an elevator, and it often can lead to an identity crisis. Do I deserve this? It might also be very limiting.

It might also be a burden rather than a privilege, when people cannot on their own walk through the city, when they need to have security, when they're not allowed to travel to particular places, or when their kids have to be escorted by security to school. It can complicate things tremendously. On top of that, there's also the part, why do people refer to me? How do they look at me? Is it because...

And this is a real example from a rising generation member, because I have an Olympic pool at home, or because my father employs the parents of two-thirds of the kids in my class, or because I'm a genuinely nice person and people like me. These are difficult conversations to have that a regular person might not have. So psychological readiness, and also the burden of being in a family, can be, but doesn't have to be, heavy.

R. Adam Smith: That's very powerful. I never heard it put like that.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Exactly. It creates a real hesitation to embrace the legacy itself and the pride that your parents or your family have built.

R. Adam Smith: In today's world, there's more tension on the family office. There's more media, there's more information, there's more information on wealth, there's more iconic social media exaggeration, and then there's also security. So in a sense, those are all impediments to the next generation taking on the family business.

Peter Jaskiewicz: But then also the industry is growing, and so there is more awareness and more collaboration and more familiarity that it's a real business, it's not just a shiny object, I guess.

R. Adam Smith: I think most people don't think about the business or the office in any way as a shiny object, but others might.

Peter Jaskiewicz: You're absolutely right. I think what happens here is that a lot of people are not sure whether they are supposed to get involved simply because they are the child of X. It's a good analogy from Hollywood.

The children of prominent Hollywood actors are said to suffer from a tremendous amount, on average, or high likelihood of developing mental health conditions, because they're never seen as themselves. Everybody comes and says, oh, you're the son of X, or you're the daughter of Y. Nobody sees them. Everybody just sees their parents. So it's difficult to step out of that shadow.

And it's the same in a family business, whether it's a founder's shadow or later generations. It's difficult to establish your own identity, who you are, and be seen for who you are rather than as a continuation of something else, or custodian of something else. That is difficult from a psychological perspective. On top of that, I've met absolutely amazing next generation members who are outstanding artists, doctors, parents, sports enthusiasts. But it doesn't mean they want to be, or could be, owners of billion dollar companies, responsible owners.

It's difficult when you are pushed to do something, and some of them rise to the occasion, do an amazing job, but maybe they wouldn't have if they didn't have to.

R. Adam Smith: I'm right in the middle of the M&A process often, with private capital, private equity, the private company transition of the major wealth in that succession inflection point. So it becomes really urgent for the family members, not the non-family members, because the non-family members, the CEOs that are hired outside, they don't have that emotional baggage, which is a whole other topic of human capital and corporate theory that's important to think about.

We can talk about that briefly, but I think this psychological weight, especially when there is a sale, we talked about this also with Tom Deans on the show, that he recommends for the next gen to purchase the company if they want it, as opposed to receive the company. And others just say sometimes the next gen don't even want to be involved, just don't even worry about it, just move on and get a job or go into venture capital or art, and the parents need to let them go.

So there are issues beyond imposter syndrome, really, in terms of family pressures that are complicated.

Peter Jaskiewicz: You're absolutely right. And I only provided one-sided version. I also see the other one. I know many major globally operating family businesses that have family employment policies in place that do not allow, by definition, family members to come back.

And I know several where you had amazing family members. In one case, among a group of several hundred next generation members in a family of several hundred owners, they're like 15th generation in Europe, one of the rising generation members became a very successful top management executive at another corporation, as a matter of fact turned around operations in a major country and brought it back to shine. The problem was that was a competitor of their own family's billion dollar business.

So you also have these examples, where some of the policies to keep family members out, although they might actually be the perfect candidate to assume a leadership position, might backfire.

R. Adam Smith: It's kind of ironic, right, that it supported a competitor.

Peter Jaskiewicz: What I wanted to say is that rather than pressuring family members to fit in a mold, or pushing them away by definition because of fears of how it might be perceived, it might make sense, first of all, to ensure that they grow up with it, get to know it, and then help them make decisions that are good for them, for the family, and then also for the ownership group. Because nobody wants to have irresponsible owners.

Or owners who don't want to be owners. At the same time, you shouldn't waste talent when it is there, motivated, and has been to some extent prepared and raised and equipped with everything it takes from day one. So I think it's a balance.

R. Adam Smith: But it speaks again to what you said so nicely. There's a softer side to things, and sometimes we try to create very important structures and beliefs, we figure out everything, but the reality is the structures are just a structure, and what makes it work is usually the softer part of things.

Thank you. Wonderful. Thinking about your book and your research with next gen and now gen, what is next gen and now gen, and what's going on in the industry between the children and non-children for leadership? Briefly talk about that, and then talk about the Enabling Next Generation Legacies work you did for the rising gen.

I think it's very important to talk about the next gen leadership, the companies and the family office as children and non-children. There are very different issues for those two groups, because for the children, the focus has to be on them personally, as humans and emotional beings. But then for the non-children, the focus shifts to the company as a corporate entity, and both of them get back to legacy, but they're very different paths.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Yeah, various topics that you've raised. Let me answer them one by one. Regarding the terminology, I think in different places around the world, people use different terms, so it can actually be confusing for them too, when they meet and realize that in a particular culture there's a preference for one term over the other. We use the term next gen because back then it was probably the most common term.

But there's been a distinction since then, to denote younger members as next gen, and a bit more senior members, maybe in their thirties and forties, as now gen. And since then, more and more people like to use the word rising gen, to highlight that this generation makes its own choices, and they are rising in terms of the experience they have, the agency they have, and the decisions they make. Instead of highlighting that they follow another generation, particular people use particular terms. I think it's perfectly fine to use one or the other, and just ensure that you have the same definition behind it.

Regarding children and adults, very often business families do not realize how important it is to start early, because a lot of the seeds need to be planted when the kids are children and when they grow up. I've met families that have made a decision, for better or for worse, to never talk about the family business at home, because they didn't want to take anything away from the family life and from being just children and enjoying life and being a family. One family that I know, that is pretty large, with over 50 family members, next generation members, maybe rising generation members.

There was then essentially no interest whatsoever, 20 or 30 years later, to become involved in the family business, because although there was a very large family business, they had no idea about it. They didn't know about the structures, about the products. They didn't know what parents and uncles and aunts were doing. So this is one example of how important it is to share stories, to give insight, and also create opportunities to get in touch, whether it is going to international trade fairs, or seeing the offices, joining a meeting, going to a retreat, doing an internship, helping out on weekends, after school, during vacation. There are various ways to help the next generation get in touch with the business without any commitments, just to better understand what there is, how it works, the culture, the texture, that feeling, to better breathe it instead of just hearing it, and then can involve themselves.

These are also the recommendations for how you create psychological ownership. Psychological ownership is the feeling that this is something you can influence, and that it's part of who you are too. That's the best driver of commitment and motivation to be part of something. But if you don't have it, it's very difficult. When I meet business owners, I had one case where somebody gave me a call and said they need a succession plan.

It's a major North American business. They are the CEO, and I have to help one of the four children come back and take over. And then the person explained to me that the four kids are between 50 and 55 and live all over the world and have been extremely successful and married and have kids and so on. And I said, look, this is not going to happen. The things that didn't work out didn't work out 20 to 30 years ago, and now it's a bit late.

So it's also difficult to turn around at some point. Business families need to realize that a lot of things they do when the kids are young have major implications for what will happen 20, 30, 40 years later.

R. Adam Smith: Wonderful. Some of the societal factors and impact of the next gen, we've discussed recently with Luke Jernigan and also with Philip Marcovici, which are interesting around this impact of the children entering and continuing the legacies of the family businesses, which is a big topic, of course, but ultimately it's, as I say many times, really up to them as a human to make their own decisions.

They should not feel that they have to take over the business to satisfy anyone else. It's really up to them as a person. Of course there's pressures, but this raises the issue of the importance of family businesses continuing in society as a whole, the thousands of them, which are probably 60, 70 percent of the entire global economy in family business form of some kind.

Maybe the family offices might be 10 percent or something, 20 percent, who knows, I don't see that stat around yet. But they own collectively a very large amount of the world's economy. So the question becomes why is it important for family businesses to continue as family businesses? And that also relates to their impact on society as a different type of organization.

You've discussed this a bit with the European Parliament, European Commission, the Canadian federal government, looking at it from a society perspective. Can you just talk a bit about that as a finishing thought, of how family business, the business of families, the family enterprise, how are they valuable to society, and why is it important to support them to continue as a concept?

Peter Jaskiewicz: This is maybe the most important question, and I really appreciate you asking it, because this is to some extent why I'm doing what I'm doing.

Let me answer it in maybe three parts. First of all, I believe on average family firms are a very responsible and social form of capitalism, that on average is a force for good. Why? Because you have owners who are visible, who are locally embedded, and so there is social control, and who obviously care. A good example is a major European owner in the financial crisis after Lehman in 2007-2008, and they didn't fire many people at the headquarters in Europe. I was doing an interview with a person, and I said, how is that possible?

You had such losses, right, and sales cratered. And he said, very easy. If I fire people here on Sunday, the priest won't let me into church, my grandkids will be beaten up at daycare, and the baker won't sell me bread.

And I thought that was a good way to put it. They tried to ensure that they maintain a social contract with the community. I think that's one strength, that there is accountability for actions. There's also control, and there's genuine care. What I'm doing, and I'll give you some estimates I've made, since you mentioned the figures, I estimate there are 100 million family businesses in the world that have employees, and there are roughly 20,000 family offices. This is a big number, and there are far too few people who care about developing new and proper best practices that would help them.

I believe that it is my mission to contribute to that. It might be the biggest lever I have to make a difference to society at large, and also help create solutions that will be there for future generations, for my kids and others, and to leave society behind a bit better than the way I found it. So that's also a driving force and motivator for me. And the third part is there are far too few people doing it at all levels. We are essentially developing best practices based on the largest anonymous corporations in the world.

That's important, they are very visible, they're very prominent, we have their products and services all around us, but they make up a tiny fraction of all businesses. Even among the large businesses in the world, there's a significant amount of them, a very significant part, that are family businesses, which we often ignore. It's important to realize they function differently, and they have different needs, strengths, and weaknesses.

So it's a bit like we focus on the elephants but do not realize there are a lot of other animals running around, and some things are common among them and shared, but others are not. So I believe there is a case to be made that we just need far more work to be done, and that talking, and then also not just creating these best practices, but sharing them, in popular media, important podcasts like yours, but then also with policymakers and others, is vital. So we also change the rules of the game and the frameworks in society, such that we create more win-win situations and harvest also low-hanging fruit that is there, and that could just help the families and businesses and communities and society at large.

R. Adam Smith: Yeah, that's true. That's why we do what we do, right? Thank you so much, that's very inspiring. I agree with you.

This last topic, you can keep talking about it some more actually, and it's nice to bring it up now because the industry is so large and changing, and there's a lot of education and misperceptions. So it's important. Today we talked a lot about succession planning, of course, of preparing ahead is part of the solution, but it's also creating an environment of communication and respect for the next gens, and that relates also to mental health as a governance variable, which is very important and not to be unspoken, and helping the next gen identify who they are, whether they stay or not in the company.

Maybe just to wrap up, tell us what's your favorite part of working in the industry? That would be nice to hear.

Peter Jaskiewicz: So I realize how important it is to prepare people for what is to come.

Everybody is uncertain and a bit anxious when they don't know what to do. When it's the first time to cook something, you just get a recipe, and it might not work out. Maybe another good analogy is the first time to swim, you can throw somebody in the water and see whether they will float or swim. A better way might be to give them swimming trunks, swimming goggles, some floaties, and tell them how it is when they get into the water, and then allow them to put their toe in first before slowly getting into the water. And I believe that a lot of family businesses, if they were a bit better prepared, a bit better trained with best practices, and had some helping hands along the way, they would be able to make more of a difference, have a bigger societal impact, and have less stress and anxiety along the way.

And that is to some extent what we're trying to do, creating best practices, sharing them, and then making them just part of the standard, that will create more resilient business families and enable them to reach the potential they have.

R. Adam Smith: Wonderful, Peter, thank you for coming today on the podcast. Very rigorous conversation and very timely, so I appreciate it. Thinking about these moments of the future really happening just at that point of succession, they really happen for years before, which is obviously involving governance, agreements, conversations, vulnerability, sharing, collaborating, and also learning from other families. You have research that gives families both the evidence and language around this, and facing the parts of ownership that are hard to talk about. So in essence, the next generation can inherit not only the wealth, but also the capacity to steward it, or just to move on and be humans and be okay with that.

So, yeah, thank you so much for bringing this depth of conversation today.

Peter Jaskiewicz: Oh, it's a pleasure. Thanks a lot. I very much enjoyed the conversation, and thanks again for doing what you're doing. It is an important part of what you're trying to achieve.

R. Adam Smith: Thank you. This is R. Adam Smith signing off. Thank you for listening. I look forward to welcoming you again on the next episode of the Family Business Audiocast.

—————————————————

Explore the strategic intricacies of family business success with the RAS Family Business Audiocast. Join R. Adam Smith as he delves into exclusive discussions with global leaders shaping the future of private wealth and enterprise. Each episode offers a rare glimpse into the core decisions driving prosperity in high-stakes markets. Tune in to gain expert insights and innovative strategies that empower family businesses to thrive across generations.

Available On : Amazon Music, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pandora, iHeart, YouTube

Disclaimer:
Opinions presented are personal and do not represent the positions of speakers’, sponsors’, or guests’ organizations.

Family Business Audiocast™