I got to confess that I am an unsuccessful son of a very successful man. My father was at one stage, one of the top advertising film photographers in town. His success was such that it reached the stage where hiring my father was considered a higher status symbol than flying in an expatriate to do the job. I, by contrast have had a rather different checkered career path. Whereas my father went from rags to riches, I went pretty much the other way. I think of the “horny aunty” who asked if I was a reformed Yellow Ribbon Criminal because the fact that I worked as a waiter and spoke the way I did, did not quite add up. You could say that I am a “disreputable” son.
I bring this personal discussion up because it seems that I’m not the only so called “disreputable” son walking around. In the five years I’ve worked in the insolvency industry, I’ve noticed that there are plenty of them around. There are a number of boxes of documents that I’ve read through, which were once thriving enterprises that were started and built up by a tough, street wise entrepreneur, that turned south after the old man died and left things to the much better educated son. Whenever these boxes ended up on my desk, I’ve often found myself asking “what happened?” How did an enterprise go from thriving and unbeatable to a box of documents for me to go through?
Succession is what you’d call the single greatest challenges facing family businesses. How do you ensure that your good work stays and grows when the main qualification for your successors is family ties? It’s obviously succeeded as many of the greatest fortunes come from family businesses that have lasted generations. However, more often than not, a thriving enterprise ends up as a box on my desk.
With the prominence of family businesses on the global stage, it’s worth studying the things that make them tick and the things that screw them up. I live in a nation that is, in many ways, the classic family business. The current Prime Minister is the son of the Founding Prime Minister and he is also the husband of the CEO of one of our sovereign wealth funds. Our national story does offer some guidelines on what to do and what not to do.
There was never any doubt that our current Prime Minister would become Prime Minister. It was only a question of when. In fairness to the late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, he generally demanded high standards of the people he chose to serve him and there are enough accounts to show that he made it a point that his family were not to cash in on his political office the way the families of his contemporaries in Malaysia and Indonesia had done. The current Prime Minister needed to have the brains to get into Cambridge (where he was regarded as a brilliant mathematician) and when he was in National Service, he did go through basic military training (BMT) and Officer Cadet School (OCS). He did not get 12-year deferments to study soil as a matter of national security.
Our Prime Minister was brought up knowing what there were expectations for him to perform. In a sense, the original Mr. Lee “trained” him up by making him go through national service, getting into Cambridge and when he entered politics, he did win his seat in a single member constituency (SMC).Before taking the top job, he did serve as his father’s successor’s deputy. In a sense, he was given time to grow into the job and we were prepared for him to take over.
The obvious comparison is Saudi Arabia, where the world knew King Salman would be the next king after his brother, King Abdullah died in 2015. What we were not prepared for was Mohammad Bin Salman, who came out from nowhere to be given a range of portfolios and before we knew it, there was a 30 plus something with no prior experience of running a fire hose, running the entire country.
However, while our current Prime Minister has been a competent enough manager, he’s been nothing. Unlike his predecessor who called for a “Kinder, gentler Singapore,” or his father who went through the independence struggle with the British and the Malayan Federation, our Prime Minister has never once articulated his vision.
At best he’s been guided by GDP growth figures in the same way that a CEO of a commercial company has been guided by sales targets. If there is a criticism to be leveled at this Prime Minister, it is that he’s been a little too preoccupied with the growth statistics than what those growth statistics mean on the ground. His signature policy of opening the floodgates on immigration was the prime example. It brought growth but it also brought a host of other issues, which Singapore is still trying to cope with.
Part of the responsibility with this, lies with the Old Patriarch. The younger Mr. Lee had to contend with the old one in his cabinet as “Minister Mentor” and somehow there was a never a chance to stamp his own mark onto the government. As is often argued, the problem with brilliant founders is that they never know when to let go.
One of the greatest causes of failure in families is the failure to let go. While Singapore has not been run to the ground and I don’t believe its in any danger of going down the tubes anytime soon, the unwillingness to let go has allowed the things that set Singapore apart to quietly vanish. Unless a new leader with a passion to set out a vision emerges, Singapore will decline.
Just as I started talking about my personal experiences, I shall end on them. I’m grateful my father allowed me to do my own things. All though I’ve not been the roaring success he was, my success and failures are mine. I was not molded to take over something that was not meant to be mine. I wonder how many family businesses might have survived if the founder had let go and allowed his successors to be their own people.
I bring this personal discussion up because it seems that I’m not the only so called “disreputable” son walking around. In the five years I’ve worked in the insolvency industry, I’ve noticed that there are plenty of them around. There are a number of boxes of documents that I’ve read through, which were once thriving enterprises that were started and built up by a tough, street wise entrepreneur, that turned south after the old man died and left things to the much better educated son. Whenever these boxes ended up on my desk, I’ve often found myself asking “what happened?” How did an enterprise go from thriving and unbeatable to a box of documents for me to go through?
Succession is what you’d call the single greatest challenges facing family businesses. How do you ensure that your good work stays and grows when the main qualification for your successors is family ties? It’s obviously succeeded as many of the greatest fortunes come from family businesses that have lasted generations. However, more often than not, a thriving enterprise ends up as a box on my desk.
With the prominence of family businesses on the global stage, it’s worth studying the things that make them tick and the things that screw them up. I live in a nation that is, in many ways, the classic family business. The current Prime Minister is the son of the Founding Prime Minister and he is also the husband of the CEO of one of our sovereign wealth funds. Our national story does offer some guidelines on what to do and what not to do.
There was never any doubt that our current Prime Minister would become Prime Minister. It was only a question of when. In fairness to the late Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, he generally demanded high standards of the people he chose to serve him and there are enough accounts to show that he made it a point that his family were not to cash in on his political office the way the families of his contemporaries in Malaysia and Indonesia had done. The current Prime Minister needed to have the brains to get into Cambridge (where he was regarded as a brilliant mathematician) and when he was in National Service, he did go through basic military training (BMT) and Officer Cadet School (OCS). He did not get 12-year deferments to study soil as a matter of national security.
Our Prime Minister was brought up knowing what there were expectations for him to perform. In a sense, the original Mr. Lee “trained” him up by making him go through national service, getting into Cambridge and when he entered politics, he did win his seat in a single member constituency (SMC).Before taking the top job, he did serve as his father’s successor’s deputy. In a sense, he was given time to grow into the job and we were prepared for him to take over.
The obvious comparison is Saudi Arabia, where the world knew King Salman would be the next king after his brother, King Abdullah died in 2015. What we were not prepared for was Mohammad Bin Salman, who came out from nowhere to be given a range of portfolios and before we knew it, there was a 30 plus something with no prior experience of running a fire hose, running the entire country.
However, while our current Prime Minister has been a competent enough manager, he’s been nothing. Unlike his predecessor who called for a “Kinder, gentler Singapore,” or his father who went through the independence struggle with the British and the Malayan Federation, our Prime Minister has never once articulated his vision.
At best he’s been guided by GDP growth figures in the same way that a CEO of a commercial company has been guided by sales targets. If there is a criticism to be leveled at this Prime Minister, it is that he’s been a little too preoccupied with the growth statistics than what those growth statistics mean on the ground. His signature policy of opening the floodgates on immigration was the prime example. It brought growth but it also brought a host of other issues, which Singapore is still trying to cope with.
Part of the responsibility with this, lies with the Old Patriarch. The younger Mr. Lee had to contend with the old one in his cabinet as “Minister Mentor” and somehow there was a never a chance to stamp his own mark onto the government. As is often argued, the problem with brilliant founders is that they never know when to let go.
One of the greatest causes of failure in families is the failure to let go. While Singapore has not been run to the ground and I don’t believe its in any danger of going down the tubes anytime soon, the unwillingness to let go has allowed the things that set Singapore apart to quietly vanish. Unless a new leader with a passion to set out a vision emerges, Singapore will decline.
Just as I started talking about my personal experiences, I shall end on them. I’m grateful my father allowed me to do my own things. All though I’ve not been the roaring success he was, my success and failures are mine. I was not molded to take over something that was not meant to be mine. I wonder how many family businesses might have survived if the founder had let go and allowed his successors to be their own people.
No comments
Post a Comment