Ambivalence (noun):

  • Simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action
  • Continual fluctuation (as between one thing and its opposite)
  • Uncertainty as to which approach to follow

The patriarch walked into the family council meeting knowing that the second-generation group was about to make an important decision that he no longer had an actual vote in. He had recently given up his vote on the council as part of the family’s ongoing continuity and estate planning process. This was new territory for him, and he was working on trusting the governance development work being done by G2 to successfully steward the family’s significant assets and portfolio of businesses.  During the meeting, he did not speak up much except to those around him, who got to hear his muttered disapprovals and skepticism that were shared under his breath.

The G2 discussion was robust and integrated several different viewpoints, and when they finally reached a vote on a particular topic, it looked set to pass unanimously. It was only then, once the moment to vote had finally arrived, that the patriarch chose to speak up and express doubt as to the choice…and as a result, both the conversation and voting process were stopped in their tracks. The vote was then delayed, causing frustration not only for the G2 group but also for the non-family CEO as the shift in momentum was now potentially costing the family significant revenue. The CEO was hoping this meeting would have the family well-positioned and ready to take advantage of a financial opportunity with a deadline for action on the immediate horizon.

Dad was later confused as to why there was disengagement in the meeting and began to openly question the value and effectiveness of the new governance process, seeding doubt among his children and their spouses.

What happened here?  The patriarch’s ambivalence flared up at a pivotal moment and the family ran directly into the challenge of the realities of formal and informal power, authority, and influence. While the patriarch no longer had any formal power, as he had actively chosen to give up his vote for the sake of a successful leadership transfer, he still carried an immense amount of informal power and a high degree of influence over the family process. The G2 group would have been fully within their rights to move forward with what looked to be a relatively easy vote, but the G2 group felt like the rug had been pulled out from under them. They had all been granted voting control for some time, but all it took from Dad was one short influential comment combined with some longstanding deflating behavior that was all too familiar, and the process was hijacked. 

While Dad had the best intentions about transferring power and authority to both the next generation and the non-family CEO, he demonstrated clear reluctance to actually transfer power and authority. Instead, he took steps to hold onto and continue to exercise his high degree of influence and power within the family and the meeting. The challenge for the G2 group was, and is, in asserting their newfound power and authority while simultaneously seeing Dad continuing to exercise his influence, struggling to let go of his long-held power and authority in this context.

Identifying an Important Family Dynamic and Pattern

In this family, the second generation is aware that this kind of ambivalent behavior is not only a longstanding pattern with their father, it is also a long-term source of inhibiting their individual and collective autonomy and leadership development. Their father’s ambivalence around trusting them to make decisions, individually and collectively, is a pattern that has profoundly limited G2’s ability and freedom to practice and step into their leadership over the years. While G2 has been heavily encouraged to engage more actively in governance, their sense of trust in “stepping up” was also quite fragile because whenever they made strides toward exercising their own leadership, influence, and power, Dad was often unconsciously controlling things behind the scenes.

The situation described here is common and understandable. When founders and their succeeding generations run up against the theory of generational change and the transfer of power vs. the actual practice of change, everyone can see just how difficult it is to engage in the process of succession and continuity.  In this case, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that everyone in the family system is both unclear and significantly avoidant about what they think, feel, and believe about power, authority, and leadership.

Dad says he would like to transfer power, but his actions say otherwise. G2 would like to step into their power but are reluctant to do so fully. Both generations are living in a state of ambivalence in which they are conflicted; part of them wants to take new action, and part of them does not. This “in-between” state generally leads to a lack of action, a lack of effective communication, and eventually, a lack of engagement. 

Unconscious Patterns with Lasting Ripple Effects

Why is this important? Because the unconscious ambivalence we see here in the founder/patriarch has already become generationally embedded in the family dynamics. It has become part of G2’s identity and approach to decision-making and it has the momentum and potential to continue to embed itself into subsequent generations over time if it is not successfully identified and addressed.  We can see in the example above that Dad’s ambivalence around the transfer of power/authority/influence has already negatively impacted G2 in their decision-making process. This challenging unconscious behavioral pattern in a founder can unknowingly foster a dynamic in which ambivalence takes over and leaves everyone involved somewhat paralyzed, frustrated, and handicapped. Unconscious ambivalence generally serves to undermine both a healthy family system and a successful enterprise, with a potentially large ripple effect.

As noted above, Dad not only demonstrated unconscious ambivalence and then re-asserted his influence and power, but he also demonstrated clear confusion at the close of the meeting as to why G2 seemed to be disengaged. If we follow the thread of Dad’s thinking here, we can see that his train of thought quickly and easily moved from confusion to concern about whether the changes taking place were effective, and whether the transfer of power was a good idea and/or “working.”

It’s important to reiterate that Dad’s confusion, coming on the immediate heels of his re-assertion of power/influence in the meeting, is one key indicator that Dad’s ambivalence is deeply unconscious. Dad has shown us how unconscious the ambivalence is by being so open and candid about his lack of clarity; he did not understand what happened and why it happened. If the pattern continues uninterrupted, we will inevitably begin to see G2’s motivation and willingness to participate begin to fray, which endangers and places in question this family’s ability to carry out the work of continuity that they have spent years developing.

Breaking the Cycle

What next?  Doing the work of bringing some awareness to Dad’s unconscious ambivalence and the behavior that follows is an essential first step. The idea of letting go and transferring power into the hands, hearts, and minds of others, even those we love and trust, is easy to consider and intend but much more challenging to implement.  Ambivalence is tricky because it is a state of mixed emotion and contradictory ideas, a place where we are caught between one point of view and another inside ourselves.

Discovering the source of ambivalence and understanding its underlying reasons are key to unlocking the possibility of shifting an emerging negative and challenging pattern within the family and its board governance or family council. For this family, the ambivalence displayed by the founder turned out to be a valuable opportunity to look deeper at the challenges involved with the generational transition. Over a period of months, the family worked together to create some new agreements on how they made decisions together. Additionally, they were able to speak with the non-family CEO about just how difficult the transition was for them, which helped him appreciate how big a factor the underlying family dynamics were for them. 

The dynamics around ambivalence in a generational transition are common and to be expected.  By bringing more self-awareness to the inner conflict and general awareness within the family and enterprise system around how ambivalence can impact the decision-making and group dynamics, people of all generations can better understand how their identity and relationship to power, authority, influence, and leadership can support or greatly hinder their progress as a family enterprise.  This work is not easy, nor is it quick, but engaging in it can truly change how family members understand themselves and interact as a group of business owners so they can achieve their goals.  

Additional Resources

Upcoming Webinar: Power, Authority, and Influence: The Hidden Challenges of Succession Planning