ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Disclosure information is available on the original site.
___
Author:
In 1925,
He quit.
Massey was the fourth-generation heir to his family’s Massey-
In realizing that his founding family needed to cut its ties with their namesake firm, Massey set an example that Rogers, heir to his own family’s giant corporation, might consider emulating.
Yet it’s clear that the Rogers scion has no intention of following in Massey’s wise footsteps — especially after a
Instead, Rogers’ stubborn willingness to put his father’s company, its shareholders, its customers and its reputation at risk for a power play to assert control smacks of poor judgment and hubris.
He may have won the messy legal battle to control the company, but the comparison between Massey and Rogers reveals important lessons that can be learned about the pitfalls — and benefits — of family-run firms in
An abundance of corporate family feuds
Bitter family feuds and succession battles are not new to the Canadian business landscape. In fact, some of Canada’s most prominent family-owned firms have had very public brawls — a few of which even make the Rogers spat seem tame in comparison.
The brewing Molsons, the Magna car-part-making Stronachs, the potato-peeling McCains and even iconic Canadian firms like
Most ended up in court, and often resulted in a family member being effectively bought out to go away — or ousted, in the case of
These historic fights, and Massey’s smart decision to step away, reveal the competing dynamics of family firms.
Some are positive.
On the one hand, a closely held family firm keeps the business “in house” for generations, ensuring a steady hand, a stalwart vision and values beyond the bottom line. Wealthy families want to leave a legacy, which often results in generous philanthropy.
This was true of Massey-
A smart family also knows when to make a dignified exit.
After
Though it eventually collapsed in the 1980s, Massey’s failure had much less to do with the problems of family ownership than a rapidly changing tractor market, a 1970s recession and some poor management decisions.
Minefields for family firms
Yet these examples also show the problems of family-controlled firms — succession issues when there is no clear successor, boardroom fights when different family members have varying visions for the firm or a simple lack of managerial ability or judgment when it comes to an heir’s turn at the helm of the company.
At the same time, families that hold on too long or ignore outside advice until it’s too late — think the
When it comes to the Rogers brouhaha, most of the aforementioned Canadian family feuds occurred in an age before social media, when an ill-considered Instagram image can cause a public relations disaster — like, for example, when
Furthermore, most of the billionaire family feuds were also amicably settled, or at least the loser withdrew without further fallout for the company. The Rogers boardroom battle was resolved quickly, but the bad blood between Ed and his family will likely linger for generations to come.
The Rogers imbroglio also jeopardizes not only a
More bad optics for Rogers
Rogers is not the most beloved firm in
Taking your mother and sisters to court, after all, might not be seen as the most sensible approach to running a family business.
Sure,
But at what cost to the company and its shareholders?
___
___
This article is republished from The Conversation under a
https://theconversation.com/from-vincent-massey-to-ed-rogers-canadas-history-of-family-firm-feuds-rivals-succession-171378
© 2021 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved., source
