Before Naming the Successor: A Dependency Map for Transfer of Responsibility
Family Office Private Wealth Journal · Editorial research desk
Family Office Private Wealth Journal · 2026-10-22
CC BY 4.0 · https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Source: https://journal.research.university/journals/family-office-private-wealth/articles/expansion-10-1007-s10834-024-09983-7-solutions

Abstract

Succession decisions often begin with a person and leave the surrounding dependencies implicit. This companion proposes a facilitated map of authority, ownership, knowledge and communication, using expert judgments as hypotheses that must be checked against actual transfer tasks.

1. Treat the source as decision support

Prazeres and colleagues combine cognitive mapping with interpretive structural modeling to organize factors affecting family-business succession [1]. Their expert participants identify relationships and priorities, and a consolidation session considers practical applicability. The value lies in making a complex decision structure visible. A relationship drawn by experts is not a causal effect estimated from a randomized or longitudinal succession study.

This distinction matters to a family office. It can use a map to discover why a planned transfer is stalled without presenting the diagram as scientific proof that one relative should lead. Keep ownership succession, executive succession, board leadership and family representation separate. They may involve different people, timetables and legal instruments even when the family prefers a single narrative of continuity.

2. Establish the decision boundary

Ask the sponsor to identify the concrete responsibility being transferred. For example, the question might be who can authorize a major operating investment after the current chair retires. Define what is outside the meeting’s authority, including changes to ownership, inheritance arrangements or binding employment terms. Appropriate professional advisers must handle those matters through their own processes.

Invite participants who understand different parts of the transfer: current owners, possible successors, nonfamily executives and an independent facilitator. Offer a confidential route for concerns before the meeting. A participant’s reluctance to disagree publicly may reflect dependence, not agreement. Preserve a record of whose perspective is represented and whose remains absent; otherwise the map risks turning the dominant family member’s assumptions into apparent consensus.

3. Build the map from work that must be done

Collect specific statements: understanding a covenant, approving payroll, supervising an executive, explaining a capital call, or resolving a conflict. Group them under education and experience, family relationships, governance, property and communication, drawing on the source’s organizing domains. Replace vague labels such as readiness with observable tasks and decision rights.

For each task, identify prerequisites. A successor cannot responsibly approve an investment without timely information, a defined mandate and a way to seek independent advice. Draw links only after asking why the prerequisite matters. Label each link as directly observed, inferred from experience, or still uncertain. Keep alternative interpretations. The point is to expose the family’s reasoning, including where it may be wrong.

4. Test one dependency at a time

Select a small transfer rehearsal. Give the proposed successor a realistic case with complete information and a documented authority boundary. Ask for a decision memorandum, then introduce a changed assumption or a conflicting obligation. Evaluate the reasoning against a rubric agreed before the exercise, rather than asking whether the answer resembles the incumbent’s preference.

The incumbent should also be tested as a delegator. Did information arrive on time? Was the mandate stable? Could the successor request contrary advice without punishment? When a rehearsal fails, separate a capability gap from a broken support system. The family office should preserve both the participant’s revisions and the organizational repairs required before another attempt.

5. Convert the diagram into an accountable sequence

Assign an owner and deadline to each prerequisite. An education task needs a mentor and a work product; a reporting gap needs a responsible finance person; an authority gap needs the board or other legitimate decision body. Schedule reviews according to dependencies rather than ceremonial dates. Do not announce a completed succession because a family gathering approved the map.

Measure whether previously blocked tasks can now be performed within the agreed mandate. Track unresolved conflicts, information delays and decisions that still require the incumbent’s unplanned intervention. Escalate if a critical obligation has no authorized backup or if a rehearsal exposes a material compliance problem. Pause the transfer of that responsibility until the relevant defect is corrected, while continuing learning that can safely proceed.

6. Preserve dignity, alternatives and evidence

A map should also show legitimate alternatives: external management, shared responsibility, delayed transfer or an orderly sale. A relative’s choice not to become an executive need not imply a failure of commitment. Publish the criteria for roles before comparing individuals, and provide a way to challenge an assessment. Avoid converting a developmental exercise into a public ranking of family members.

The study’s expert judgments and subjectivity limit the generalizability of its model. Its validation session supports perceived usefulness, not a proven improvement in succession outcomes. The proposed contribution here is a practical record of what must become possible before authority changes hands. Over time, the family can compare predicted dependencies with observed transfer difficulties and revise its own model instead of treating a consultant’s first diagram as a permanent constitution.

Source, attribution and limits

[1] Vasco M. C. E. Prazeres; Fernando A. F. Ferreira; Neuza C. M. Q. F. Ferreira; João J. M. Ferreira; Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė. “Who Comes Next?”: Planning and Managing Sustainable Initiatives that Facilitate Family Business Succession. Journal of Family and Economic Issues (2024-08-23). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-024-09983-7. CC BY 4.0.

Subjective expert elicitation; mapped causal relationships are judgments, not experimentally identified effects. Consolidation assesses practical applicability rather than measured long-term succession success.

Prepared by the Family Office Private Wealth Journal editorial research desk with AI assistance at the direction of Dr. Freedom Cheteni. Original research authors retain full credit and are not authors or endorsers of this companion. This proposed process has not been evaluated in a new empirical study; no independent peer-review acceptance is claimed. This is educational analysis, not individualized investment, legal or tax advice.

Rights: © 2026 The Research University.
© 2026 The Research University. This original editorial text is licensed Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Attribute the title, editorial research desk and publisher, link to the license and indicate changes. Underlying research, talks and recordings retain their separate attribution and rights.
Edition changes: Original AI-assisted editorial synthesis. Research findings, transcript themes and proposed practices remain distinct. No new participant data or independent peer-review acceptance is claimed.