Lessons in Governance, Power, and Family Alignment
Rupert Murdoch’s recent succession settlement marked the end of one of the most closely watched family business stories in modern history. After decades of speculation and internal tension, a deal was struck: Lachlan Murdoch would take control of the family trust and, with it, the voting shares that govern the Murdoch media empire. His siblings accepted a combined payout of roughly $3.3 billion.
The real-life drama has shown striking parallels to HBO’s Succession, which is no accident: the acclaimed series was loosely based on the Murdoch family. After one episode portrayed the sudden death of its fictional patriarch, reports suggest it even prompted the Murdoch family to reflect on their own contingency plans.
In corporate terms, the recent settlement resolved uncertainty. In family terms, it underlined the human cost of delayed transitions and fragile trust. The Murdoch succession offers a reminder that even the most sophisticated legal and financial structures cannot safeguard a legacy if the family behind them is not aligned. For advisors and family offices, it is a case study in how governance, emotion, and power intersect — and how delicate that balance can be.
The Context Behind the Story
For more than half a century, Rupert Murdoch built a global media empire anchored by News Corp and Fox Corp. Control of both companies rested in a complex network of trusts that ensured his dominance long after he stepped back from executive roles. The crown jewel was the Murdoch Family Trust, holding voting shares that dictated the family’s influence across both corporations.
As the founder aged, the question of succession grew increasingly urgent. Four of his children — Lachlan, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence — were beneficiaries of the trust, but their values and visions diverged sharply. Lachlan aligned most closely with his father’s conservative approach; James and Elisabeth leaned toward more liberal, global perspectives.
Murdoch’s attempt to amend the trust in Nevada, reportedly to secure Lachlan’s position, triggered the final rift. The move faced resistance from both the court and other family members. It became clear that even the most carefully constructed legal frameworks have limits when family relationships break down, leaving the legitimacy of control in question.
The Deal
The final agreement brought resolution but not reconciliation. Lachlan Murdoch retained control of the family trust and, through it, the companies his father built. His siblings received substantial cash settlements in exchange for stepping away from governance roles.
From a business perspective, the outcome restored stability. It prevented prolonged legal disputes that could have affected investor confidence and corporate performance. From a governance perspective, it highlighted the dangers of waiting too long to plan for leadership transition and family alignment.
The settlement created clarity but not unity. It preserved the business but ended the idea of shared family leadership. For other wealthy families, the message is clear: the longer a founder delays open dialogue and structured succession planning, the higher the personal and financial costs become.
Lessons for Families and Advisors
Financial and legal experts see the Murdoch succession as a textbook case of technical precision without relational alignment.
Emma Jordan, senior private client lawyer at Taylor Wessing, noted that in ultra-wealthy families, trust-level control is often more powerful than board positions. The Murdoch trust ensured continuity of ownership, but not consensus. Once that trust became contested, the entire governance framework was at risk.
The Nevada court’s resistance to Murdoch’s proposed amendments illustrates a critical limitation: even irrevocable trusts cannot override a lack of trust among family members. Matthew Erskine, lawyer and member of Family Wealth Report’s editorial board, points out that while such structures are designed to prevent disputes, they can also harden divisions when they are inflexible or perceived as unfair.
This dynamic often leads to a ‘tragedy of the commons’ in family ownership. When multiple heirs inherit shared control without shared alignment, the very structure that once united them can become the source of conflict.
Founders’ intentions, no matter how carefully documented, rarely endure without active stewardship. Regular reviews, external facilitation, and clear liquidity or exit processes can turn potential disputes into manageable transitions. Without these safeguards, the Murdoch succession devolved into a settlement rather than collaboration.
This case offers clear lessons for families with complex assets and multigenerational ownership:
- Review governance and trust structures regularly.
Family circumstances change. Legal instruments should be reviewed every few years to ensure they still serve the family’s purpose. - Plan ahead and engage the next generation early.
As Michael T. Clear and Erin D. Nicholls explain, founders who delay transition planning often assume that legal instruments will secure their legacy. In reality, succession delayed is often succession denied. By the time conflict surfaces, the family’s emotional capital is already depleted. Buy-in is much easier to achieve before decisions are imposed. - Plan for both continuity and exit.
Families need pathways for participation and for graceful withdrawal. Liquidity provisions can preserve harmony. Families need to embrace paradoxical thinking, or the ability to work with opposing or contradictory ideas simultaneously. This increases a family’s resilience. - Balance control with flexibility.
Strong governance frameworks should include built-in mechanisms for review, amendment, and renewal. - Involve neutral facilitators.
Independent advisors can help separate personal feelings from business decisions and keep communication productive.
Ultimately, the Murdoch case shows that control and clarity are not the same. A family may achieve one through legal means, but without the other, the legacy becomes fragile.
A Holistic View
From a holistic perspective, the Murdoch succession story touches on all four Abundances of legacy: Wealth, Relationships, Time, and Purpose.
Wealth was the most visible dimension. The family’s trusts were engineered for control rather than collaboration, and secured ownership rather than unity. While the structures ensured the patriarch’s continued influence, they left little room for shared decision-making or flexibility. In terms of Relationships, deep ideological and personal divisions fractured communication long before legal challenges began. The Murdoch siblings’ differing worldviews became competing identities within the same legacy. Time emerged as another critical factor. Key decisions were made reactively, often under legal or public pressure, rather than through a gradual and deliberate process. Finally, Purpose — the most abstract but perhaps the most vital abundance — was overshadowed by the struggle for control. The focus remained on ownership, not meaning.
These four dimensions show that sustainable succession depends on a living system of alignment, where wealth serves relationships, time provides structure, and purpose gives direction. A successful succession plan, therefore, requires a holistic strategy that considers and integrates each of these elements of real wealth.
How the Family Council Canvas Could Have Helped
The Family Council Canvas is designed to help families and their advisors approach complex transitions with structure and transparency. It integrates financial, relational, and governance discussions into one framework, aligning family members and advisors around a shared purpose.
If applied to the Murdoch succession, the Family Council Canvas could have supported a more inclusive and orderly process by creating space for dialogue, clarity, and review long before conflict reached the courts.
Using the Family Council Canvas, the family could have engaged in early discussions on stewardship, liquidity, and the role of wealth in supporting each member’s goals, turning power into participation. A facilitated Family Council exercise could have strengthened relationships by providing the neutral ground needed for honest conversation. It would have helped clarify roles, surface assumptions, and rebuild a foundation of respect before conflict hardened into opposition. The Canvas would have granted the family sufficient time by introducing pacing and foresight: a phased transition plan, regular review points, and accountability milestones that allow succession to unfold with clarity rather than crisis. A shared purpose statement could have reconnected the family’s wealth to its intended impact and helped family members define their shared purpose.
By going through each section of the Canvas, the family could have developed a clearer picture of every key component of their succession strategy:
- The Dynamics section would have opened a structured space for dialogue before decisions were made, allowing Rupert Murdoch and his children to voice expectations, values, and concerns without lawyers or press defining the conversation.
- The Compass section would have made the misalignment visible: Rupert’s focus on continuity and control versus his children’s priorities of equality, independence, and family unity.
- The Journey section would have traced how years of rivalry, loyalty, and ideological difference shaped the siblings’ current relationships, and helped advisors step in early for mediation before legal restructuring.
- The Goals & Actions section could have turned diverging perspectives into a clear roadmap: a phased leadership plan, agreed review points, and liquidity provisions for those choosing to step back.
As a result, the family might have realigned around shared principles of stewardship and respect instead of ending in legal tension and financial settlement. The legacy — alongside the empire — could have remained intact.
Building a Legacy Requires Alignment and Governance
The Murdoch succession delivered closure but not unity. It preserved the business empire but fractured the family behind it. For advisors and family offices, the message is clear: legal control and legacy are not the same. A succession that focuses solely on authority fails to provide heirs with a shared purpose.
It also highlights a broader truth about family governance: structures alone do not create stability. Governance must be treated as a living system, one that evolves with the family, reviews its assumptions, and adapts to new circumstances.
Open communication and transparent decision-making are not signs of weakness; they are indicators of resilience. The families who manage wealth and power most effectively are those who build feedback loops, the mechanisms that allow renewal rather than rigidity.
Tools like the Family Council Canvas support this shift by giving advisors and families a shared language and visual process for navigating complexity. When used consistently, they transform governance from a one-time event into a habit of alignment.
Sustainable transitions require three ingredients: clarity, communication, and continuity. Families that invest in these early build the right structures, but more importantly, they build trust.
Disclaimer: This article is a case study based on publicly available information and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. The analysis and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not constitute factual claims about the private lives or intentions of the individuals discussed. The use of any copyrighted material is done for the purposes of commentary and criticism and is believed to fall under the principles of fair use. All images are used with attribution to their known sources.
