Search results

Shows how a regional family company threatened by national competition must make changes to its structure and way of doing business or face extinction or sale.

As founders of First Interstate BancSystem, which held $8.6 billion in assets and had recently become a public company, and Padlock Ranch, which had over 11,000 head of cattle, the Scott family had to think carefully about business and family governance. Now entering its fifth generation, the family had over 80 shareholders across the US. In early 2016, the nine-member Scott Family Council (FC) and other family and business leaders considered the effectiveness of the Family Governance Leadership Development Initiative launched two years earlier. The initiative's aim was to ensure a pipeline of capable family leaders for the business boards, two foundation boards, and FC.

Seven family members had self-nominated for governance roles in mid-2015. As part of the development initiative, each was undergoing a leadership development process that included rigorous assessment and creation of a comprehensive development plan. As the nominees made their way through the process and other family members considered nominating themselves for future development, questions remained around several interrelated areas, including how to foster family engagement with governance roles while guarding against damaging competition among members; how to manage possible conflicts of interest around dual employee and governance roles; and how to extend the development process to governance for the foundations and FC. The FC considered how best to answer these and other questions, and whether the answers indicated the need to modify the fledgling initiative.

This case illustrates the challenges multigenerational family-owned enterprises face in developing governance leaders within the family. It serves as a good example of governance for a large group of cousins within a multienterprise portfolio. Students can learn and apply insights from this valuable illustration of family values, vision, and mission statement.

Steven Rogers had always thought that someday he would like to own a business with one or both of his daughters. As his eldest daughter, Akilah, finished her final semester at Harvard Business School, she told Rogers that she would like to create with him a Chicago-based real estate venture that included buying, rehabbing and renting homes in the Englewood and South Shore neighborhoods of Chicago. Rogers quickly realized that his biggest challenge was how to equitably structure the ownership of the business. He gathered advice from family business experts and slowly began to build a plan that would benefit each member of his family. Meanwhile, Akilah assumed responsibilities associated with the business as she finished her final semester at HBS. The case ends with Rogers Family Enterprises owning its first three houses.

1. Students learn how to construct an equitable business ownership plan for a family business. 2. Students learn the agreements that family businesses should have in place. 3. Students learn why successful entrepreneurs tend to be those who control the growth of their company while envisioning an empire.

In late 2011, Jerry Bertram, vice president and general manager of the fire retardant additives business of Huber Engineered Materials (HEM), a division of family-owned J. M. Huber Corporation, was preparing to present the potential acquisition of the precipitated alumina trihydrate (PATH) business to the environment, health, and safety committee of Huber's corporate board. He had convinced HEM's leadership of PATH's strategic value to their business and the urgency of the acquisition based on PATH's parent company's movement into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and its plans to close the PATH plant.

Winning board approval posed a major challenge. It was unclear whether the plant would remain operational, because HEM would have to enter a shared-services arrangement with PATH's parent company, which continued to use the site. In addition, acquiring PATH would mean integrating its specialized, unionized labor force into Huber, which had very few union workers. Finally, early due diligence had revealed tens of millions of dollars of potential environmental risk on the site. The last issue was particularly critical, given Huber's generations-long history of respect for the environment, and its executives' and directors' reluctance to take on any business with excessive environmental risk.

This case illustrates in depth the family business values that can promote consideration of an ostensibly unconventional and risky strategic move, and enable executives to push for approval of the same, as backed by comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation plans.

The ATF case is a succinct opportunity to explore the many special features of leadership succession for a family business. In 2009 the company was passing the baton to the oldest of three sons in the second-generation family business.

ATF produced metal and plastic fasteners for, primarily, the automotive industry. ATF had grown into a company with more than $50 million in annual revenues. The company had grown in large part through alliances with other family businesses around the world. First-generation patriarch Don Surber had led the company since he acquired it in 1982. Don was known for his charismatic leadership style and his focus on driving value through a network approach.

The case traces the career paths of all three sons and looks at the succession through the eyes of the oldest son, Jason Surber. The elements, constituents, and challenges of succession are evident. The fundamental insight is that business leadership succession is far more than just passing the business leadership baton. It also requires attention to the family, the board, the whole system of external stakeholders, and the future of ownership.

The epilogue in this note covers the period from 2009 to 2012 by describing what Jason did to earn credibility, to incorporate his brothers, and to define his personal leadership philosophy and style. The epilogue thus provides students with an opportunity to consider and define their own personal philosophy of management leadership and their own style. They will see the art of melding styles from the past with their own for the future.

Plymouth Tube, a family business, was a manufacturer of precision tubing and extruded shapes for aerospace, desalination, medical, mining, energy, and water industries globally. Founded in 1924, as of 2012 it employed 770 people at thirteen plants in seven U.S. states and had sales of about $240 million. The family had twenty members across three generations, including spouses. The board was composed of eight members, three from the family and five who were independent. Stacy, age 30, was the only fifth-generation family member working for the company. Her father, Van, age 64 and a fourth-generation member, had been in the business for forty years and had succeeded his father as president, CEO, and chairman.

In early 2013, management presented a very large expansion project that was riskier than previous recent investments to the board, and requested the board's approval. Independent board members asked Van to obtain feedback from the family about the proposal. Van asked Stacy to direct the process for informing the family, asking for their input, and communicating it back to the board.

How should Stacy conduct the process? What should be done with the information once it has been gathered? Should family members be involved in this type of business decision? Based on the information given in the case, is this a good investment?

After decades of continuity, Luse Holdings faced a new challenge in 2015. The company needed to pivot in a changing industry context—specifically, Luse had lost a bid to a non-union competitor for the first time—and CEO and fourth-generation member Steve Luse was considering three primary options: (1) continue as is, while also adding non-union services; (2) sell part of the business to reduce family risk; or (3) sell the entire business to fund other family interests. A fourth possible option was a maximization-of-growth alternative.

This decision involved more than business considerations alone. The family's legacy as an industry champion and community philanthropist also required considering all relevant stakeholders, including immediate and extended family, employees, and community. Complicating the situation was the lack of an immediately identifiable successor in the next generation of the Luse family, though several fifth-generation members had completed internships with the business including Steve's daughter Ashley, a recent MBA graduate. Students will step into Steve's shoes as he considers what recommendations to make to the advisory board six months from now. Students can also take the perspective of Ashley, a rising next-generation member: should she join the family business?

In mid-2012, after successful years in large public companies and obtaining an MBA, middle daughter Jen, 32, is trying to decide whether the time is right for her to enter her mother and sister's small family business to grow it further. Destira, Inc. was a designer/manufacturer of gymnastics wear for girls, headquartered in California. Donna Levy founded the company in 1990, after years of making leotards for her three daughters, who were competitive youth gymnasts, and getting requests from other parents to make the garments for their own children. In 2005, when Donna's oldest daughter, Jodi, joined Destira, Donna gave her a 50 percent equity stake. Between then and year-end 2011, the pair grew the revenues from $550,000 to $1.06 million, increased the number of outlets carrying the brand, upgraded the internal accounting/operations software, and added an online direct-to-customer retail business. The case shows realistic considerations for the individual, family, and business when evaluating whether or not to commit to join the family enterprise.

In mid-2013, the Lee family, which owned the Hong Kong based food and health product giant Lee Kum Kee (LKK), struggled with how best to increase involvement of the fifth generation (G5), the children of the company's current fourth-generation (G4) senior executives and governance leaders. Only two of the fourteen G5 members had joined the company, and few had expressed interest in further involvement, including in the multiple learning and development programs the business offered, such as a mentoring program. Many of the G5 cousins had expressed little interest in business careers in general, and none of them currently was serving as an LKK intern. G4 members observed that their children were busy with family obligations, hobbies, and emerging careers outside the business. G5's lack of interest in business and governance roles was part of a growing pattern of low family engagement in general, exhibited by the cancellation of recent family retreats (once an annual tradition) because of apathy and some underlying conflict. A history of splits among past generations of the Lee family regarding business leadership made the engagement issue even more meaningful and critical.

Students will consider the challenge from the point of view of G4 family members David Lee, chairman of the family's Family Office, and his sister, Elizabeth Mok, who ran the Family Learning and Development Center. They and their three siblings saw engaging the next generation as a top priority, one related to key concepts including family-business continuity, generational engagement and empowerment, succession, emotional ownership, and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation.