Shared Leadership in Family Firms : Overcoming the Challenges & Implications for the Enterprise

Shared Leadership

in Family Firms

BACHELOR THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 credits

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Management, Civilekonom & Sustainable Enterprise Development

AUTHOR: Alisa Järvelä, Ian Gunnarsson, Martin Stulen JÖNKÖPING 5/2020

Overcoming the Challenges & Implications for the

Enterprise

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Shared Leadership in Family Firms – Overcoming the challenges & Implications for the Enterprise

Authors: Gunnarsson I., Järvelä, A. & Stulen M. Tutor: Michal Zadawzki

Date: 2020-05-18

Key terms: shared leadership, family business, sibling team, grounded theory

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, family firms are thought of as centralized institutions where power

is concentrated around a single leader, yet this construct is losing ground as increasing numbers of family firms employ or have considered employing multiple leaders at top level. However, implementing shared leadership in a family firm setting provides a myriad of benefits and challenges as the two very distinct mindsets of family and business intertwine. Overcoming the challenges of shared leadership holds a promise for a thriving organization, but little is known about the controlling mechanisms family firms use to overcome the challenges of shared leadership.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the topic of shared leadership in family

firms in order to gain a better understanding what kind of implications shared leadership has for the organization and how can the family firm overcome challenges associated with shared leadership.

Method: In this qualitative research we draw upon abductive single case study to explore a

family firm with three brothers sharing the leadership at the top of the organization. Primary data was gathered through eight semi-structured and unstructured interviews and with the help of open, axial and selective coding we created a final model of the mechanisms that family firms use to overcome the challenges of shared leadership.

Findings: The empirical findings proclaim that the success of the co-leadership structure lies

on three types of controlling and support mechanisms: internal integrating mechanisms, external support mechanisms and appropriate structures and processes. Together these mechanisms allow the family firms to reap the benefits of shared leadership while also providing grounds for a more decentralized organization.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the family firm participating in this study for their willingness to partake in interviews and sharing information for our thesis, without you it would not have been possible.

We would also like to extend our gratitude to our mentor Michal Zadawzki for his patience and guiding hand during this process as well as our fellow thesis writers in the seminar group. Without your feedback and guidance, we would not have a thesis to present.

Finally, we would like to thank the family business consultant Hans Gundmar, who gave us the inspiration to study shared leadership in family firms.

Table of content

... 1

1

Introduction ... 1

2

Frame of Reference ... 6

2.1.1 Enablers of shared leaderships ... 7

2.1.2 When is shared leadership beneficial? ... 8

2.1.3 Problems related to shared leadership ... 9

2.2 Family business ... 10

2.3 Shared leadership in family businesses ... 13

2.3.1 Shift to shared leadership through succession ... 13

2.3.2 Multiple family members in top management teams ... 14

2.3.3 Integrating mechanisms for successful shared leadership ... 15

2.3.4 Implications of shared leadership for family firms ... 16

2.4 Summary ... 17

3

Methodology ... 18

3.1 Research philosophy ... 18

3.2 Research approach ... 19

3.3 Research design and sample ... 20

3.3.1 Selecting a company for the case study ... 21

3.4 Data collection ... 22

3.4.1 Primary data ... 22

3.4.2 Secondary data ... 23

3.5 Data coding and analysis ... 25

3.6 Trustworthiness ... 28

3.7 Ethical considerations ... 28

4

Results and analysis ... 29

4.1 The case: Shared leadership in a Swedish manufacturing company ... 29

4.2 Challenges ... 31

4.2.1 Family grievances ... 31

4.2.2 Complex decision-making ... 32

4.2.3 Miscommunication ... 33

4.3 Overcoming the challenges of shared leadership ... 34

4.3.1 Internal integrating mechanisms ... 34

4.3.2 External support mechanisms... 35

4.4 Benefits of shared leadership ... 37

4.4.1 Complementary skill sets ... 37

4.4.2 Divided responsibility ... 37

4.4.3 Increased business opportunity ... 38

4.4.4 Employee engagement ... 39

4.5 Changes brought by shared leadership ... 39

4.6 Summary ... 43

5

Discussion ... 44

5.1 Theoretical contributions ... 44

5.2 Practical implications ... 45

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 45

6

Reference list ... 47

7

Appendix 1 ... 51

8

Appendix 2 ... 51

FIGURE 1-FAMILY BUSINESS UNIVERSE………..11

FIGURE 2-DATA STRUCTURE………..27

FIGURE 3-OVERCOMING CHALLENGES OF SHARED LEADERSHIP…..……….……..44

TABLE 1- BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS THAT SUPPORT CO-LEADERSHIP……….9

1

Introduction

As the speed of change and complexity of today’s business environment only seem to be increasing, it is becoming increasingly difficult for any individual to possess all of the skills and capabilities needed to run an organization competently (O’Toole et al., 2002). At the same time, current trends in business world are indicating a migration away from hierarchical and centralized governance structures, enabling more collaborative leadership approaches to develop at the top of an organization (O’Toole et al., 2002).

A majority of leadership studies have considered leadership from a functionalist perspective where leadership is seen as a series of characteristics or abilities held by an individual (Mayo, Meindl & Pastor, 2003; Day, Alvesson & Spicer, 2014). However, this functionalist approach fails to account for many important aspects of shared leadership, which innately holds the assumption that leadership is constructed through a process of ongoing intersubjective negotiation and understanding. In this study we aim to view leadership from a more interpretive approach and will use Pearce and Conger’s (2003) definition of shared leadership as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among

individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both.” (Pearce and Conger, 2003 p.2). The term shared

leadership has been used synonymously with similar terms such as “collaborative leadership”, “distributed leadership”, “collective leadership”, “co-leadership", and “emergent leadership” (Bolden, 2011). In this paper, on account of simplicity, we have decided to use only terms shared leadership and co-leadership and these will be referred to interchangeably.

The trend of having multiple leaders is gaining increased momentum especially in family firms, organizations often characterized by the pursue of longevity and attempts to keep the control of the business within family (Miller & Le-Breton Miller, 2005). This is an interesting development in a group of businesses that are traditionally thought of as

centralized institutions, where decision-making is concentrated around one key person, usually the owner-manager of the business (Miller & Le-Breton Miller, 2005).

In the light of the previous research on the issue of shared leadership, there are compelling reasons to suspect that this form of leadership can be particularly promising for family-owned businesses as these organizations are often innately characterized by high levels of trust and shared values, both important preconditions for the successful implementation of shared leadership (see e.g. O’Toole et al., 2002 and Arnone & Stump, 2010). Consequently, family firms with multiple family members sharing the leadership role might be able to better synchronize their efforts into successful co-leadership compared to leaders who do not share a familial background. Moreover, by assigning multiple leaders, family firms may be able to tap into a wider spectrum of human capital and skills which can help secure the business longevity and help the family firm avoid and overcome potential conflict between family members when choosing a successor for the business, for instance. On the other hand, the shared leadership configuration can equally cause the exact opposite effect and even lead to the dissolvement of the business as suggested by Cater & Kidwell (2014). Therefore, the benefits and challenges of shared leadership in family firms should be weighed carefully.

Using grounded theory approach this paper aims to form a theoretical explanation of the phenomenon of shared leadership in family firms focusing on the organizational level analysis, especially considering interaction between top management and middle management. The remainder of this paper is divided into five major sections. First, we introduce the research problem and purpose. Following that we provide a frame of reference and offer an overview on some of the general theories and concepts related to the subject of co-leadership and family business. Third section discusses the methodology of the study followed by chapter 4, where we analyse and present the results from the field and formulate a theory out of these findings. Lastly, we provide a discussion with some practical implications as well as suggestions for future research and a conclusion.

1.2 Problem Discussion

Traditionally, family businesses have been characterized by centralized leadership structures where information and power are concentrated around a single powerful leader (Miller & Le-Breton Miller, 2005). However, family firms are increasingly moving towards more collaborative models, where more than one person holds the leadership responsibility. For example, American Family Business Survey (2007, p. 4) found that, 42,2% of businesses on the verge of succession were considering Co-CEOs. The reasons for choosing multiple successors can range from successor wanting to avoid family conflict (Cater, Kidwell & Camp, 2016) to more emergent and sudden changes, as was the case in Böver & Hoon’s (2020) case study, where a sibling team took over the business after their father’s death.

A general observation from the authors, when reviewing secondary data, was that previous research on shared leadership in family firms has often focused on the issue from succession perspective and from top management team-level analysis. This is not surprising given the fact that succession presents one of the most critical challenges to family businesses (Cater, Kidwell & Camp, 2016). Moreover, previous research has mostly focused on explaining the necessary preconditions and outcomes of shared leadership, yet the actual mechanisms and organizational processes underlying successful shared leadership are relatively under-researched (Ulhøi & Müller, 2014). Although Bövers & Hoon (2020) took steps in explaining the internal integrating mechanisms that help sibling successor teams to function, a more comprehensive understanding of the controlling and integrating mechanisms that help family firms leverage the potential of shared leadership is needed. The often-reported challenges of shared leadership such as complex decision-making and confusion in communication (see e.g. Aronoff & Astrachan, 1997; O’Toole et al., 2002; Cater and Justis, 2010) are likely to cause negative effects which ripple downwards in the organization, concerning especially the middle management level employees, who tend to communicate with top management regularly and thus can offer new insights into the problem. Therefore, extending the unit of analysis to the whole organization can potentially yield interesting results. Sharma (2004) also calls for more attention for firm level research in the field of family business.

Notwithstanding the research gaps previously mentioned, the sheer amount of family firms and the low probability of survival (Santarelli, 2005) warrants further delving into the topic of shared leadership in family firms. Consequently, the topic has both social and academic relevance, as the study might clarify how family firms concentrate their efforts to overcome organizational challenges related to shared leadership and some of the implications of how this type of management structure changes the firm.

1.3 Purpose

With this paper we hope to shed a light on the issue of shared leadership in family firms and how the firms overcome the associated challenges of the phenomenon. Given the lack of family business studies focusing on organizational level analysis, we decided to delve into that perspective and chose to examine a medium-sized family business with a co-leadership structure at the top of the firm. Given these considerations we try to answer the following research questions:

RQ1: “How different organizational members of a family firm perceive shared leadership and its benefits and challenges?”

RQ2: “How can a family firm overcome the challenges of shared leadership?”

RQ3: “How has the organization changed after the introduction of shared leadership?”

Besides extending the theory of shared leadership in family business context we hope to provide valid information and ideas for family firms who currently have shared leadership structures or are considering multiple successors.

1.4 Delimitation

Numerous definitions have been offered to capture and explain the nature of family firms. Generally, these definitions tend to include an attempt to articulate that the uniqueness of family firms stems from the family influence which determines the goals of the business and its distinctive characteristics (Chua, Chrisman & Sharma, 1999; Sharma, 2004). Yet, this type of businesses also seems to vary in terms of family involvement. (Sharma, 2004). The focus of this study is on family firms which have direct family involvement in day-to-day operations of the business. Therefore, in this study, we have chosen to use an operational, mid-range definition of family businesses offered by Astrachan and Shanker (2010). This definition classifies firms as family businesses when they are managed by a one or more founders or descendants and there is a clear intention to keep the business in the family over generations. Thus, our consideration excludes businesses where the family is controlling the strategic direction of the business, but not active in the daily operations and decision-making.

____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

2

Frame of Reference

Traditional models of leadership are usually built around the idea of vertical leadership – the idea that one person is firmly in charge and projects influence to the followers (Pearce & Barkus, 2004). Interestingly, the developments over the last half-century have shown trends of moving away from concentration of power and centralized structures to facilitate more collaborative structures at the top of an organization. (O’Toole et al., 2002). The practice of shared leadership is neither new nor unusual, as noted by O’Toole et al. (2002). Throughout the history there are examples of shared political power. For example, Sally (2002) described how shared leadership thrived for over more than four centuries in ancient Roman political societies.

In the business world co-leaders can arise from different instances. Some common situations are corporate mergers, starting business as co-founders, the practice of two individuals sharing a job or responsibilities, or from the incumbent CEO’s invitation to share power (O’Toole et al. 2002). It has been claimed that the approach has been used more often at the middle manager and business unit level. However, it does exist at a top management level as well (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010; O’Toole et al., 2002). For instance, investment banks have been known to use co-leaders, Goldman Sachs in particular (Sally, 2002). Other instances include Disney (1980s-1990s), Apple (1980s-90s) and H&P (Pearce & Conger, 2003).The success of the shared leadership structure in these firms have been variable; some have been highly successful while others ended in failure (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

The definition of shared leadership itself possess some ambiguity and, as often the case in scientific research, an abundance of definitions has been offered. These definitions all bring forward a slightly different focus, yet all of them include the idea of multiple individuals being involved in the leadership as formal or informal leaders. To mention some of these Carson et al. (2007), studying the impact of various internal and external

factors on shared leadership in teams, viewed shared leadership as a team property and defined shared leadership as “an emergent team property that results from the

distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members” (Carson et al., 2007,

p. 1218).

On the contrary, Pearce and Conger (2003) emphasized that the essence of shared leadership lies in the influence processes between group individuals and defined the term as “a dynamic interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the

objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce & Conger (2003) p.1) Similarly, according to Pearce and Barkus (2004),

shared leadership occurs when all members of a team are fully engaged in the leadership and also exert influence over the fellow team members in order to maximize the potential of the team as whole. It remains to be discussed whether shared leadership is a team function, an influence process or simply a matter of role or something else. However, in this paper we consider the phenomenon as an influence process following the definition of Pearce & Conger (2003).

Mayo Meindl and Pastor (2003) captured the idea of shared leadership in two aspects: decentralization and density. With decentralization the authors referred to the distributed aspect of collective leadership, which is at the heart of the construct. Density describes the amount of shared leadership (or influence) perceived by the individuals in a team.

2.1.1 Enablers of shared leaderships

Antecedent conditions leading to the development of shared leadership were investigated by Carson et al. (2007). They found that supportive internal team environment in the form of a shared purpose and social support as well as external coaching support were key factors influencing the development of shared leadership. O’Toole et al. (2002) suggested that the co-CEO approach seems to work best when it is created as an initiative by an existing CEO. Arnone and Stumpf (2010) found that there were five criteria that seem to influence the success of a co-head structure:

a) the breadth and degree of buy-in from key stakeholders at the time of a decision, b) stronger business results in terms of sales and net profits

c) more initiatives taken for business growth and expansion,

d) creation of a more supportive positive climate along with retention of key talent, and e) decrease in personal stress between the coleaders.

O’Toole et al. (2002) stress the importance of chemistry between the co-leaders, alongside with complementary skill-sets of the candidates and clear definitions of roles. Fine-tuning this suggestion, Arnone & Stumpf (2010) suggested that rules and responsibilities should be defined in such manner that they allow each coleader to leverage their respective talents and interests instead of dividing responsibilities based on function-based roles determined by organizational structures. Instead of formal planning, Bligh, Pearce and Kohles (2006) offer a more emergent explanation for the process of developing roles in co-leadership arrangements. They argued that in collaborative leadership teams the coleaders tend to adopt temporary roles depending on the challenges which the team is currently facing causing natural gravitation towards the tasks which suits or motivates them the most. However, Farrington Venter & Boshoff (2012), who studied family businesses and sibling teams, did not find support for the importance of clear roles and responsibilities.

2.1.2 When is shared leadership beneficial?

A number of studies have shown that shared leadership impact the outcome and performance of a business (see e.g. Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, Wassenaar & Manz, 2014; Hoch, 2013) Co-leadership structures may result in benefits such as better decisions, stronger business results, more opportunities for business development, more positive work culture, and decreased stress (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010). Hoch (2013) found that shared leadership was positively associated with innovation.

Pearce & Barkus (2004) suggest that the development of collective leadership practices can be beneficial for certain functional tasks, namely tasks that are interdependent, require a great deal of creativity or are highly complex in nature. On an organizational level, Arnone & Stumpf (2010) suggest that co-leadership seems particularly promising in business contexts such as geographic expansion and/or merger integration as well as transition management. They further list considerations such as attempts to retain high

performers and ability to tap into complementary skill-sets and capabilities. These considerations are summarized in table 1.

Table 1

Business considerations that support co-leadership

Primary Beneficiary

Leader Retaining high performers Complementary skill sets

Organization Transition management Geographic expansion and/or merger integration

Immediate need 2-3 Year view

Time perspective of the Board

Source: Arnone & Stumpf, 2010

2.1.3 Problems related to shared leadership

Typical problems which leaders encounter in co-leadership arrangements are distrust of the other coheads intentions, lack of communication between the co-heads, disagreements over issues based on personal experiences and perspectives, fear of unfair recognition and lack of respect between the coheads (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010; O’Toole et al., 2002). Admittedly, shared leadership also entails the notion of complexity and might result in more time-consuming processes, in contrast to more traditional vertical leadership models (Pearce & Barkus, 2004).

Pearce et al. (2003) argue against viewing shared leadership as a new solution for all organizational issues. There are distinct limitations regarding the efficacy of shared leadership, as there are certain leadership tasks and issues that are more effectively handled by individuals rather than by groups (Pearce et al. 2003). Pearce et al. (2003) goes on to suggest that there are situations in which shared leadership could even prove

harmful to a company and should be avoided. Lastly, they go on to identify five of the main limitations to shared leadership:

a) lack of knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for shared leadership. b) lack of goal alignment between members of the team.

c) lack of goal alignment between the team and the organization. d) lack of time to develop shared leadership.

e) lack of receptivity to shared leadership.

Interestingly, all those five limitations revolve around human capital, retention of employees and unanimity of vision, traits which innately personify family firms (Miller & Le-Breton, 2005; de Vries, 1993; Sharma, 2004;), which will be discussed in the following subchapters. Tied together with the interesting finding brought by Farrington et al. (2012) about family firm leaders not needing to have clarity about roles and responsibilities could imply a strong synergy between shared leadership and family firms, where one’s strengths negate the other’s weaknesses.

2.2 Family business

The term family business can refer to a wide range of businesses, differing in size, management style and ownership structures (Sharma, 2004; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). However, a key feature distinguishing family firms (FFs) from other type of organizations is probably the intertwined relationship of family and business systems, which often has significant implications for decision-making in these companies and the goals of the business (Chua et al., 1999; Sharma, 2004). Astrachan and Shanker (2010) offered a range of operational family business definitions from a broad and inclusive definition to a narrow and exclusive variant. The level of inclusiveness describes the perceived degree of family involvement in the business. The broad definition involves family firms where the family controls strategic direction and participates in the business. Their middle range definition considers FFs where the founder and/or a descendant runs the business and the business intends to remain in family. The narrowest perspective views FFs as those where multiple generations participate in the business and more than one member of owner’s family has management responsibility. The authors present these

views visually as nested circles. For instance, the broad view includes the middle-range definition and narrow one and the middle definition includes the definition of the narrow view as shown in the figure 1 below.

Figure 1

Family Business Universe

Source: Astrachan & Shanker, 2010

Kets de Vries (1993) notes that attributes such as distinctive family culture, resilience, knowledge, and flexibility are advantageous to family firms compared to non-family run businesses. Miller & Le-Breton Miller (2005) presented a 4-C model to explain the unique characteristics of family firms. These 4 Cs are continuity, community, connection and

command.

With continuity the authors refer to the FFs long-term orientation and the desire for continuity and retainment of control of the business within the family (Le-Breton & Miller, 2005). Indeed, keeping the control and ownership within the family seems to pay off as high family involvement can be viewed as a form of competitive advantage as

Chrisman et al. (2005) suggest. Particularly it can result in benefits like intangible resources, familial understanding and survivability capital. Retaining leadership in the family during succession can also result in positive reputational benefits (Sharma, 2004).

Community refers to the nurturing and cohesive culture of family firms and the

informality of these businesses. Miller & Le Breton-Miller (2005) argue that the informal nature of these businesses frees the initiative and creativeness of the workers, yet the downside is insular thinking and inability to see beyond the family firm. The authors further argue that when employees join the firm, they develop more intimate association with their employer than in other types of organizations. Loyalty and motivation levels of employees tend to be high in family firms.

Connection, Miller and Le Breton-Miller argue, comes from the family roots, which leads

to building up social capital in the firm over the generations. FFs tend to enjoy high levels of trust and reputation and have enduring relationships with many stakeholders, including their employees but also suppliers and customers and even wider community.

The last attribute, command brings forward the fact that FFs tend to be run by independent and influential family managers, who have high sense of stewardship over the company due to lingering family roots and idea of following the family dream. This independency and freedom from shareholder scrutiny can, according to Miller and Le Breton-Miller, lead to original and untypical action. To keep the business on track, it can be advantageous to have multiple family members in influential positions, as family members often provide frank exchanges about the ideas and initiatives the firm is about to pursue.

The distinct culture and mentality of family firms are not without its flaws. Kets de Vries (1993) names an innate unwillingness to grow, messy organizations, strong nepotism, successor frustration, autocracy and difficulty finding a successor as some of the most evident disadvantages of family firms.

Moreover, a significant reason why family firms are regarded as unstable is the leadership succession. Not only is it a perilous process in itself, but even if the transition was a success, there are no guarantees that the family has enough human capital to fill the top-management positions (Colli, 2013). An even worse situation is that they have too much

of it but of low quality (Colli, 2013), which can happen when the firm favors family members over qualified outsiders for management positions (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005).

Furthermore, the founder of the company might resist change in later generations, refusing to relinquish the leadership of the firm (Zahra, 2005) or discourage the successors from finding new better strategies and instead insist that processes and procedures remain the way they always have been done (Davis & Harveston, 1998).

2.3 Shared leadership in family businesses

Nordstrom Inc., a fashion specialty retailer, is a prime and perhaps even an extreme example of co-leadership patterns in family firms: six family members of the fourth generation served jointly as president, each having responsibility for a key aspect of the business (Aronoff and Astrachan, 1997). Cater and Justis (2010), focusing on pre- and post-succession perspective, proposed factors or conditions that affected shared leadership in multigenerational family firms. Enhancing factors included long-term orientation, close communication and shared understanding among group members, timely succession planning and higher decision quality. Factors that hampered the development and implementation of shared leadership included failure to release control by incumbent leaders, resistance to change, relationship confusion and lengthened decision time. According to Bövers & Hoon (2020), shared leadership arrangements benefit from familiarity and partnership, indicating the suitability of this distinctive leadership approach for family firms.

2.3.1 Shift to shared leadership through succession

Family business scholars have devoted significant efforts to the topic of succession (Sharma, 2004), which refers to process of the transfer of both management and ownership of a family firm to the next generation. It is a commonly cited statistic that two thirds of first-generation family businesses do not survive through succession, and only about 10-15% make it to the third generation (Aronoff, 1999). In the light of this statistic and the longevity-seeking nature of family businesses (Kets De Vries 1993; Miller &

Le-Breton Miller, 2005), succession presents one of the most critical challenges for family-owned enterprises.

Transmitting leadership from one predecessor to several successors adds to the complexity of succession (Aronoff and Astrachan, 1997). However, as more and more parents are treating multiple of their children as equal successors to the family business (Bövers & Hoon, 2020), passing the family business leadership to multiple family members is slowly becoming a common practice (Cater & Justis, 2010). Cater & Kidwell (2014) stated that the use of successor teams in the family firm can be interpreted by the next generation as the incumbent's desire to indicate trust for the next generation leaders. On the other hand, from successor perspective, multiple successors could be seen as the incumbent's lack of trust in a single successor from the next generation, or that there are political issues involved in the succession process which restrict the incumbent’s trust (Cater & Kidwell, 2014).

Lack of shared vision and weak next-generation leadership have been mentioned as the leading reasons for the failure of family firm succession from one generation to the next (Miller, 2014). Examining the relationship between shared vision, business climate, and next-generation leadership in family firms Miller (2014) found that shared vision for the family business has a strong effect on the leadership effectiveness of the next generation leaders. Cater, Kidwell and Camp (2016) identified two major successor team performance outcomes, a positive track leading to team commitment and a negative track resulting in dissolution of the team and potentially even the demise of the family firm.

2.3.2 Multiple family members in top management teams

Miller & Le Breton-Miller (2006), attempting to explain the drivers that make some family businesses competitive – while leaving others disadvantaged, suggested that involvement of multiple family executives brings agency advantages to the firm as family members with multifaceted expertise have both incentive and knowledge to oversee the managers in each part of the business. The same authors argue that the emotional and financial attachments to the business result in deep concern for the future of the enterprise

and heightened sense of stewardship and proposed that the presence of multiple family members in top management team correlates positively with financial performance.

Family involvement in top management tends to lead to an emergence of distinctive behavioral dynamics that can either strengthen the performance and evolution of a family firm or deteriorate the business (Chrisman et al. 2005). Chrisman et al. (2005), also mention that the strengths and weaknesses of a family management team are dependent upon the relationship between the members of the team.

Studying sibling teams from succession perspective, Cater and Kidwell (2014) suggested there are four different variants how power and authority can be shared in successor leadership teams. These were, a) disagreement and group destruction, b) dominant leader in an unequal group, c) first among equals, and d) complete equals. Excessive competition among the group members can seriously hinder the group effectiveness (Cater and Kidwell, 2014) but also the organizational productivity if contentious family owners start to cancel one another’s initiatives to drive their personal interests (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). On the other hand, a pattern of co-operation, unified implementation of decisions and mutual agreement to share power as well as development of trust improved the leadership group effectiveness (Cater & Kidwell, 2014).

Prior research about shared leadership has been indecisive about the importance of having clearly defined roles between the co-leaders. Farrington et al. (2012) who examined basic factors needed for a sibling team to function and succeed, did not find support for the idea that the coleaders should have clear roles and competence. Instead, their study found evidence for the influence of the physical resources, skill diversity, and strategic leadership.

2.3.3 Integrating mechanisms for successful shared leadership

Bövers & Hoon (2020) described three integrating mechanisms that allow the members of a sibling team to synchronize their shared leadership activities into action. These are reciprocated affirmation, shared entrepreneurial spirit, and acknowledgement of complementarity.

Reciprocated affirmation

Reciprocated affirmation refers to mutual support and encouragement as well as blind trust and reliance. In sibling teams, close communication is often well-established, and thus communicating satisfaction and dissatisfaction may be easier.

Shared entrepreneurial spirit

Shared entrepreneurial spirit develops as a result of development of joint goals and objectives and shared familial background.

Acknowledgement of complementarity

Acknowledgement of complementarity refers to continual acknowledgment and valuing of the complementary skill set of each leader and their respective expertise. This enables the sibling team to reap synergy benefits from the collaborative leadership structure.

2.3.4 Implications of shared leadership for family firms

One main area likely to be affected due to adoption of a shared leadership configuration in family firms is decision-making. As noted by Miller & Le-Breton Miller (2005) centralized structure of family firms and the owner-manager's high level of command over the family business can offer the advantage of quick decisions. Yet, when more actors are involved in the decision-making process, it usually becomes more difficult and time-consuming (Aronoff & Astrachan, 1996). Consequently, shared leadership arrangements entail the idea of changing approach to decision-making. Essentially, Aronoff & Astrachan (1996) argue that the so-called entrepreneurial approach where the owner/founder makes the key decisions alone converts into a more consensus-seeking or discuss–and-vote type of decision-making. However, especially the consensus-seeking approach can undermine the quality of decision-making if hard decisions are being postponed or avoided altogether to avert a potential family conflict.

Aronoff & Astrachan (1997) argued that having co-CEOs can influence positively family unity, improve decision making, aid succession continuity, reduce family conflict,

enhance authority, and strengthen communication. A recent study about sibling co-leaders by Bövers & Hoon’s (2020) illustrates well how co-leaders who share familial ties might be able to avoid many of the pitfalls of shared leadership, such as distrust of the other coheads intentions, lack of communication and disagreements over issues based on personal experiences and perspectives (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010). However, confused authority and complexity of decision-making are not uncommon problems in organizations with shared leadership arrangements (Aronoff & Astrachan, 1997; Cater and Justis, 2010). Besides Bövers & Hoon’s (2020) model of sibling teams internal integrating mechanisms, very little research has been undertaken to explain the controlling mechanisms how family firms can overcome these challenges.

2.4 Summary

Solid theoretical foundations have been developed for shared leadership and a number of articles in the field of family business have focused specifically on leadership teams e.g. Cater & Justis, 2010; Cater & Kidwell, 2014; Farrington et al., 2012; Cater et al. 2016; Bövers & Hoon; 2020). Previous research also points out how family firms innately can entail many advantages such as resilience, knowledge and flexibility (Kets de Vries, 1993), having a strong company culture is not without its inherent flaws (Chua et al., 1999; Sharma, 2004; Kets de Vries, 1993). Miller & Le-breton Miller (2005) summarized the unique characteristics of family firms, casting further light on the long-term mentality of family firms and the challenges which that can entail (Colli, 2013; Kets de Vries, 1993; Zahra, 2005; Davis & Harveston, 1998)

The literature review confirms that successions also prove a great risk for companies (Aronoff, 1999; Kets De Vries 1993; Miller & Le-Breton Miller, 2005), consequently illuminating the emerging movement towards more collaborative structures in leadership practice (O’Toole et al., 2002) and the trend extends to family business leadership where it is becoming a common practice to pass the leadership to multiple family members (Cater & Justis, 2010; Bövers & Hoon, 2020).

When implemented successfully, shared leadership can result in numerous benefits such as more opportunities for business development, better decisions and decreased stress (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010).

There are several key factors that influence the success of co-leadership structure. O’Toole et al. (2002) mention the importance of chemistry between the co-leaders, well-defined roles between co-leaders and complementary skill sets. Other key factors for shared leadership include supportive internal team environment with shared purpose, social support and external coaching (Carson et al., 2007). On the other hand, typical problem areas for shared leadership are distrust between co-leaders, lack of communication between co-leaders, conflicts based on personal experiences and perspectives, fear of unfair recognition and lack of respect between co-leaders (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010; O’Toole et al., 2002).

However, results are diverging and sometimes contradicting when it comes to e.g. importance of having clear roles. Other researchers found support for the fact that roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined prior to whereas others suggest more agile roles should be defined in a way that allows each co-leader to leverage their respective talents and interests to take care of the task at hand (Arnone & Stumpf, 2010)

3

Methodology

3.1 Research philosophy

In this subchapter we will discuss our ontological and epistemological standings and what implications these philosophical standpoints have for our study and the outcome of the research. Since we seek to provide an understanding of social phenomena within a particular context, our research philosophy falls under interpretivism in the continuum of research paradigms. This paradigm rests on the ontological assumption that reality is subjective and truth and reality are created by the individual's own perceptions, not discovered (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Interpretivism has been attributed as especially suitable for investigating situations where not much information is available on the subject due to its ability to provide a rich understanding of the phenomenon under

investigation (Collis & Hussey, 2014), thus being a suitable paradigm for investigating the emerging issue of shared leadership in family firms.

In contrast to ontology, epistemology aims to clarify what is considered as valid knowledge (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Epistemological assumptions that we hold have influence on our choice of methods for data analysis. As interpretivists, our perspective on the issue is that perspective, meaning, and experience are socially produced and reproduced (Burr, 1995). Therefore, our focus is to theorize the socio-cultural contexts and surrounding structures that might explain the individual narratives and statements revealed during the data collection process (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

3.2 Research approach

Referring back to our paradigm, interpretivist studies tend to be linked to qualitative research as the methods associated with qualitative studies allow the researcher to dive deep into the subject. Grounded theory methodology has proved particularly appropriate for studies that focus on clarifying people’s understandings of the world and how their understanding is related to the social context around them (Potter, 1998). Given these considerations and our research paradigm of interpretivism, we chose to utilize grounded theory as the overarching methodology of this research.

Consequently, the logic of reasoning utilized was abductive. Abductive reasoning is particularly suitable when the subject of the study has a limited amount of research done before and the nature of research question lies in the social and day to day operations in the firms (Ong, 2012). Abductive reasoning is characterized by continual review efforts between empirical material and theory to define the analytical framework. Thus, to keep the study moving forward we first gathered material of all accessible kinds, as suggested by Czarniawska (2014), until the material did not reveal any new information. After this initial step, the data collection continued by focusing on the aspects that we deem the most important ones. With the new aspect in mind we continued collecting data allowing us to continually define our theoretical framework. This process of data review and collection was continued until we had a relatively consistent theory of the phenomenon or reach a second theoretical saturation point (Czarniawska, 2014).

3.3 Research design and sample

With the research paradigm and questions in mind, a single case study method was recruited to aid the data collection. Case study approach is considered beneficial method when on is looking to understand situations where there is no clear single set of outcomes and the researcher is interested in understanding how context influences outcome (Patton & Applebaum, 2003) According to Eisenhardt (1989), using data from a case study to build grounded theory has three major strengths:

A) Theory building from case studies is likely to produce novel theory.

B) Theory and data are often closely connected, which enables later testing and expansion of theory.

C) The resulting theory is likely to produce highly valid empirical results due to the implicit validation resulting from a constant comparison of the data from the start.

To Yin (2013), the greatest flaw with single case studies are its lack of rigor. All too often there is too much freedom involved for the case study conductor, which results in careless execution and risk of biased perspectives.

By being preemptively aware of the flaws with single case studies, we were able to counteract them with actions and efforts of our own. Grounding the research in grounded theory, we were able to deal effectively with the issue of bias as the methodology takes into consideration existent theory but is not driven by it (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). Triangulation is embedded in the methodology (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019), and in the form of constant comparison we actively compared our results with previous literature.

3.3.1 Selecting a company for the case study

Patton & Appelbaum (2003) and Eisenhardt (1989) note that the sample needs to be strategically selected in relation to the phenomenon of the interest and the relevant theoretical background. Purposive sampling method was therefore employed. To aid our understanding of the research problem and to be able to answer our research questions, the following requirements were established:

A) The firm is a family-owned and controlled business and the family members are active in the day-to-day decision-making and activities of the business

B) The firm currently has a co-leadership arrangement at top management level with two or more co-leaders who are jointly responsible for the business.

However, the method of convenience sampling was also applied since it allowed us to choose a company which was easy to access and widely available to participate in our research. We proceeded using personal contacts and media searches and settled for a medium-sized manufacturing business located in the Småland area in Sweden. The choice of medium-sized business (50-250 employees) was suitable also for the fact that the authors assumed businesses of this size to have more distinguishable management structures compared to micro enterprises (<10 employees), for instance.

3.4 Data collection

3.4.1 Primary data

To collect primary data from our case company, we adopted tools of ethnographic fieldwork. Ethnographic fieldwork aims to reveal first-hand what people say and do in a particular context and commonly uses observation and interviews as data collection methods (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). As these types of data tend to be unstructured the approach is flexible in nature, thus allowing us to have interactive-reactive approach to the study and e.g. modify our research question and design from the beginning until the end of the study. As such, we were able to collect current, reliable, complete and specific data.

Unstructured and Semi-structured Interviews

For the purposes of this study, we collected data using unstructured and semi-structured interviews. As suggested by Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson (2012, p. 132) unstructured or semi-structured interviews are appropriate when: “it is necessary to

understand the personal constructs (sets of concepts or ideas) used by the interviewee as a basis for his or her opinions and beliefs and the logic of a situation is not clear.” (as

cited in Collis & Hussey, 2014).

In the beginning of the research process we consulted field practitioners, including two family business consultants and one researcher, to get an overview of the family business arena and identify current and relevant issues for research.

In order to answer the established research questions, we aimed at interviewing multiple internal stakeholders at the firm. We used the three-circle model of family firms by Tagiuri & Davis (1982) (See appendix 1) to identify suitable participants. Furthermore, to ensure we would receive relevant answers we set two additional requirements: a) The participant should be active in the day-to-day operations of the firm and b) have frequent interaction with the top management. This led to the exclusion of the front-line level employees and focusing on middle management and executive level interaction. Based

on these considerations and the availability of interviewees we decided to interview the top leadership team consisting of three brothers, one non-family employee and an external chairman of the board. All members of the top management team were owner-managers of the business. The non-family employee held a position as a line manager and had frequent direct communication with the top management team.

In total 8 interviews were conducted individually, each lasting between 20-65 minutes. Due to the Covid-19 situation, all interviews were conducted as video calls. However, one researcher was present on-site with the interviewees during all interviews. After every interview the authors spent some time prompting for clarifications and details in the respondents’ answers and stories to make sure that we had understood their answers correctly. The interview questions for each round of interviews were developed based on the findings from our previous data collection rounds and at times spontaneously during the interviews. A sample interview guide used with the leaders can be found in Appendix 2. Slightly modified versions of the questions were used with the employee and the external chairman of the board. With the consent of the interviewees, all interviews were recorded and transcribed afterwards using intelligent verbatim.

In addition to the aforementioned methods, we searched and requested for publicly available and internal documents regarding the company. This corroboration allowed us to confirm and contrast the information gained from the interviews.

3.4.2 Secondary data

The majority of secondary data in this research consisted of previously published scientific articles and survey results.

Method for Secondary Data Collection

The reasoning utilized in this research is abductive, and consequently, the frame of reference was defined continuously throughout the research process as relevant topics arose from primary data, as suggested by Czarniawska (2014). Therefore, the procedure for this literature review was used in an iterative manner and consisted of 3 distinct steps. The process was initiated by establishing selection criteria, identifying the most relevant

keywords for the research topic and forming search terms. Next, most relevant articles were shortlisted using the predetermined exclusion criterion as discussed below. In the third step, the shortlisted articles were thoroughly reviewed and, if still deemed important, included in the frame of reference. In many instances, new references and articles were located using snowball method, i.e. from the reference lists in relevant articles. Literature was located through multiple databases, mainly using Jönköping University’s search engine Primo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.

Establishing selection criteria

The authors evaluated the sources with the following criteria, a) relevance for the research question and b) how credible is the source. A basic minimum requirement set for all scientific articles were that they should have a peer-reviewed status. If this requirement was lacking, which was the case for many books, for instance, the authors used alternative evaluation methods such as citation statistics provided by search engines. Timewise we started with articles that were published during the last decade, but as the research kept advancing, many older works were included as they were deemed as major works in shared leadership or family business research.

The main focus of this study is shared leadership in family firms and how it affects the organization. Shared leadership has been used synonymously with multiple other terms such as “distributed leadership”, “collaborative leadership”, “collective leadership”, “co-leadership”, and “emergent leadership” (Bolden, 2011). The main keywords used to search reliable research papers were: “shared leadership”, “distributed leadership” & “collective leadership” often accompanied by keywords such as “family business” or “family firms”. We also used search terms such as “top leadership” and “family firms”. It was also required that at least one of the aforementioned keywords was mentioned either in the title of the article or in its abstract.

Many articles were excluded due to being out of scope for the research. For instance, we excluded articles that focused on public sector organizations or services such as health care and education.

3.5 Data coding and analysis

To analyze the data, we utilized thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke (2006) defined the approach as a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (or themes) within the data. In thematic analysis, a theme “captures something important about the data in

relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.10). This approach was chosen

due to its flexibility and theoretical freedom, while still being able to provide rich and detailed, yet complex account of data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Another reason for favoring this approach was its ability to highlight similarities and differences between different participants. This was an essential requirement for our study as we were exploring the views and perspectives of multiple stakeholders.

While flexibility can be a major advantage of thematic analysis, it can also be seen as the main disadvantage of the approach (Nowell, Norris, White & Moules, 2017). According to Holloway & Todres (2003) flexibility can lead to inconsistency and lack of coherence when developing themes from the data. To overcome this issue, we have established and communicated an explicit epistemological position in chapter 3.1 in an attempt to coherently underpin the findings and analysis of our study (Holloway & Todres, 2003). As interpretivists, we sought to use thematic analysis to theorize the sociocultural contexts and structural conditions, that explain the findings from the field. Therefore, we aim to take the analysis beyond what is said explicitly to a more latent level.

The data analysis was performed after transcribing the recorded material. We began the coding process with open coding. Each researcher carefully reviewed the data in order to identify lines and passages that were fundamental to answer the research questions. These lines were labelled with appropriate codes. The second-order categories were established by synthesizing and clustering first-order data under suitable, more abstract themes. Lastly, we looked for 3rd order dimensions which linked multiple themes logically to one another. To draw meaningful conclusions from our data, the thematic analysis was conducted in an iterative manner and it followed the method of constant comparison. We searched for themes validating previously established theories in a deductive manner, but also aimed to extract relevant codes inductively by performing further rounds of coding

and comparisons of data. This iteration between theory and empirical data helped us finding focus and distinguish important findings. In deductive coding, we were looking specifically for the following themes: the respondents view on how had the shared leadership structure affected the family business, how were the responsibilities and roles divided between the co-leaders, and what benefits and challenges had the respondents identified with the shared leadership structure.

Figure 2 displays the structure of our data with some example codes and categories we used. This presentation of codes and categories does not imply causality between the different themes but rather relationships we found in the data. The empirical material presented in the next chapter is organized along four different themes that emerged from the analysis.

Figure 2 Data Structure

3.6 Trustworthiness

Case studies as research method, due to the inherent nature of the interpretivism paradigm they fall under, innately suffer from the risk of researcher bias (Collis & Hussey, 2014). In order to enhance the quality of our results and minimize the risk for bias, we adopted several types of triangulation including investigator and data triangulation (Carter et al, 2014). Multiple triangulations as this, was described by Denzin (1970) as “the most refined goal any investigation can achieve” (p. 310).

Investigator triangulation was implemented in the form of each member in the research team analyzing the transcribed data first individually, and afterwards the team reviewed and synthesized the identified codes collectively in order to fully understand and analyze the complex matters of our data (Archibald, 2013). Whilst striving for the same goal, the three authors come from very varied backgrounds, which in turn cultivated active debate as our perspectives and values perceived the findings through different lenses. When the integrity of a particular finding was questioned, lengthy discussions were conducted to determine the potential influence of bias relating to the subject.

Data triangulation was performed by reviewing internal and public documentation about the firm in order to find corroborating and contrasting evidence for the claims made during interviews.

3.7 Ethical considerations

In line with basic principles of research ethics, all interviewees were informed about their rights as a participant and basic information about this study and its purpose was provided both in oral and written form. All participants and researchers signed a consent form to ensure there was an explicitly communicated consent from the participants (Collis & Hussey, 2014). To give the participants opportunity to remain unidentified, possibility for anonymity was offered. We are not using the names of the participants in this study, but instead refer to their roles in the firm. Confidential data about the organization such as internal documents were only handled and stored by one researcher who is active in the operations of the business chosen for this study.

4

Results and analysis

In analyzing the interview data, 4 broader themes emerged which will be discussed in this section. These themes were challenges of shared leadership, overcoming the challenges of shared leadership, benefits of shared leadership and changes brought by shared leadership. These will be discussed after the description of the case company.

4.1 The case: Shared leadership in a Swedish manufacturing company

Using the European Commission (2003) definition of SMEs, the company chosen for our case study is a medium-sized enterprise with a staff headcount ranging from 50 to 250. The company, operating in the manufacturing industry, is a second-generation family firm currently led by three brothers, who entered their position as co-leaders in 2008. The manufacturing industry is an industry characterized by change in the form of technological advancements as well as processes such as Line Manufacturing and several industrial revolutions (Lasi, Fettke, Kemper, Feld & Hoffmann. 2014). The industry is currently in the middle of a disruption as the industry 4.0 is redefining how products are produced and due to the growing concern about resource scarcity and sustainability, which can create pressure especially for smaller actors to adapt.

The company was founded in 1955 by a sole owner and CEO who manufactured forging products on-site. The firm has been stationed in the same town since the 60’s and currently employs 50 workers, producing lumber handling systems and equipment for sawmills. The founder was active in the business until 2008 at which point three of his sons assumed leadership of the firm. The successors had all been active in the firm for several years and they inhabited some form of manager role at the time of succession, but the founder had complete authority of the firm up until that point. In relation to the succession and transformation into a shared leadership configuration, the brothers decided to bring in external non-family help in the form of a Chairman of the board. The brothers own equal shares of the firm and holds the top positions, with the help of the external chairman of the board (ECB) they changed the organization and employees was given management positions and a management team was created, consisting of these employees and the brothers themselves.

Table 2

Key facts about the firm. Key facts Generation Revenue growth (annual) Leadership No of employees Sector 2nd 30,1% (4) 3 brothers as equal owner-managers 50 manufacturing

Source: Owners of the firm .

The shared leadership structure developed rather organically in the company. Initially, the oldest brother assumed the role of CEO after his father stepped down as the other brothers simultaneously all held managerial positions within the firm. Furthermore, one of the brothers explained that the equal ownership of the firm was an important reason to why they developed shared leadership rather than continuing with a sole leader as their predecessor. As said by leader B “There was no start really, we grew into it naturally”. Interestingly, it seems that the decision to move to shared leadership was initiated by the brothers themselves. This proves an exception to the claim that the most successful shared leadership adaptations were initiated by the existing CEO (O’Toole et al, 2002)

The brothers see themselves as one part of a whole, both that they need each other to lead the firm and that together they have all the expertise needed for their projects. “We

complement each other well with different competencies and they are all necessary in order to make good decisions. I believe that is why we share responsibilities” (Leader

A). This seems to correspond with Carson et al. (2007) arguments of shared leadership being a natural development due to shared purpose and social support. Using the power relationship model proposed by Cater and Kidwell (2014) the brothers see themselves as complete equals.

After taking over the leadership, the brothers came to the unanimous conclusion that external support was needed and thus hired an external chairman of the board (ECB). The ECB is actively acting as an architect for the organizational structure and an unbiased negotiator between the brothers.

4.2 Challenges

Shift to shared leadership also posed many new challenges for the company, especially with regards to defining the rules of decision-making and communication.

4.2.1 Family grievances

“Family matters to seep into the decision-making processes and you lose focus on what is important. I believe that that is the Achilles heel

for family businesses, not to be able to differentiate between family and professional” (Leader A).

This quote by leader A brings up the challenges brought by the overlap of family and business systems. Similarly, leader C observed that “The disadvantage is, of course, that

you are siblings and you remember old squabbles as kids”. The ECB further agrees that

family firms face distinctive issues compared to other types of organizations due to potentially conflicting personal interests. The fact that past personal squabbles between siblings tend to linger into business decisions as adults is nothing new according to previous research (Kets de Vries. 1993, Miller & Rice, 1988).

Leader C went on to explain in his interview that “it is very beneficial when three brothers

lead a company to have someone external who calms everything down”. This further

cement the importance of having an external ECB to serve as negotiator and provide an unbiased opinion during complicated topics.

“it can be difficult to have discussions, especially about something troublesome”

(Leader C)

As mentioned above, conflicts have lasting implications, resulting in the brothers rarely wanting to address controversial issues or bring up anything that has to do with old arguments. Astrachan (2003) agrees with that assumption, crediting this to the fact that relationships between family members are more densely linked compared to unrelated parties. Consequently, having one bad relationship within a family organization sends ripples through the tight web of relationships with others. This may lead to several

“elephants in the room” which can only be properly resolved using external support. To combat this, Leader B suggested that “You need new blood, someone to break the routine

which always exists within family firms”

4.2.2 Complex decision-making

The ECB often voiced that changes occur slowly with multiple decision-makers, aligning with past studies regarding the complexity of the shared leadership structure (Pearce & Barkus, 2004). Having to discuss most if not every potential decision while making sure that everyone agrees is time consuming, no matter how unified the brothers are in vision. The family company setting ensures that conflicts are much more devastating and can quickly turn into long lasting grudges, thus the co-owners are careful not to leave anyone in the dark or steamroll someone out of the fear of permanent repercussions.

We also noticed during the interviews that there was a reluctance to speak about conflicts in the decision making and that the top leadership sought to avoid conflicts as much as possible. This is one aspect of how and why complexity might arise and why the top leadership are not always presenting a united front. They tend to avoid contact between themselves regarding certain questions because of the fear of conflict and instead remaining in their respective area where they have autonomy:

“--When things are a little worse for wear you can retreat into your corner where you

have some autonomy.” (Leader C)

When asked how conflicts usually are handled the ECB replied “It’s probably me against

the others. We need to find a compromise; which I think we’ve done nicely.” and followed

by giving caution “They are very different personality-wise, with different backgrounds.

It can be very difficult to reach a consensus.” Inevitably, disagreements do occur, and

during those times it is vital to distinguish between one’s own interest and what is best for the company. Leader C explained that “sometimes a decision is made that you do not