What happens when a founder’s ambitious successor is also the person with whom he has the most difficult relationship?
As Frank Mars’s American confectionery business grew, his son Forrest pursued ambitions of his own. The company, known for Milky Way and Snickers, became the setting for disagreements over ownership, strategy and control that drove father and son apart.
For family office advisers, such circumstances raise difficult questions about succession. How should a family assess a potential successor whose abilities are evident, but whose relationship with the incumbent leader has broken down? Who has the authority to determine the future of a family enterprise, and what happens when personal relationships influence that decision?
The Mars case offers an instructive study of family continuity, individual ambition and the transfer of authority.
From Confectionery to an International Business
Frank C. Mars developed an interest in confectionery as a child, when his mother taught him to make sweets while he was confined to their home by illness. His early attempts to establish a confectionery business were unsuccessful, and financial difficulties placed considerable strain on his marriage to Ethel G. Kissack. She initiated divorce proceedings in 1910, when their son Forrest was six years old.
In 1911, Frank began making and selling buttercream sweets in Tacoma, Washington. He continued pursuing his business ambitions despite further setbacks, eventually establishing the Nougat House in Minneapolis in 1920. By 1922, his business was operating as the Mar-O-Bar Company, an early predecessor of Mars, Incorporated.
The breakthrough came in 1923 with the Milky Way bar. Inspired by the flavour of a malted milkshake, it combined whipped nougat with caramel and a chocolate coating. The product quickly became a commercial success. Snickers followed in 1930, combining nougat, caramel and peanuts. In 1932, Mars introduced 3 Musketeers, originally featuring three chocolate-coated nougat bars in chocolate, vanilla and strawberry flavours.
As the confectionery business prospered, Frank pursued another ambition: breeding racehorses. He established Milky Way Farm in Tennessee, developing it into a substantial horse-breeding operation. Meanwhile, his son Forrest had joined the family business and was developing his own ideas about its future. Their differing ambitions would soon put their working relationship under strain.
A Son with Different Ambitions
Following his parents’ divorce, Forrest grew up largely apart from his father, spending part of his childhood with relatives in Canada. After graduating from Yale in 1928, he joined Frank’s confectionery business in Chicago. Their renewed relationship soon became strained by disagreements over how the company should develop.
Frank and Forrest disagreed over investment, international expansion and Forrest’s position in the business. According to historical accounts, Forrest demanded a one-third ownership stake and permission to expand into Canada. Frank refused, and their disagreements eventually led to Forrest’s departure for Britain in 1932.
However, Forrest did not leave empty-handed. He reportedly received approximately $50,000 and the rights to manufacture and sell Milky Way products outside the United States, while Frank retained control of the American business.
In Britain, Forrest established Mars Limited and developed the Mars Bar for the local market. He also entered pet food through Chappel Brothers, whose products included Chappie. The sector offered large-scale production and recurring demand. Forrest built the British business under his own leadership, giving him control over its strategy, investment and expansion without his father’s involvement.
Forrest later expanded his business interests in the United States independently of his father’s company. In 1941, he established M&M’s with Bruce Murrie, whose family connections to Hershey helped secure a chocolate supply. Forrest held an 80% stake in the venture, retaining majority control. The sugar-coated chocolates subsequently became popular with American troops during the Second World War. He also built a substantial business around Uncle Ben’s Converted Rice, drawing on advances in parboiling technology.
Meanwhile, the original American business continued to prosper under Frank’s successors. By the time Forrest acquired control in 1964, both enterprises had developed substantial commercial operations under separate leadership. Yet Forrest’s eventual control of the American company had been far from certain.
The Long Road to Control
Frank Mars died in 1934, two years after Forrest left for Britain. His widow, Ethel Veronica Healy Mars, assumed the presidency of the American company, while their daughter Patricia also held a substantial ownership interest. Ethel Veronica maintained a strong interest in horse breeding and racing, continuing to develop Milky Way Farm after Frank’s death. Day-to-day management of the confectionery business remained largely in the hands of her half-brother, William ‘Slip’ Kruppenbacher.
Although Ethel Veronica held the presidency, her limited involvement gave Kruppenbacher considerable authority over the company’s management. Forrest, meanwhile, remained a shareholder without control over its direction.
Following Ethel Veronica Mars’s death in 1945, Forrest held approximately one-third of the American company’s common shares, as did his half-sister Patricia. Yet his substantial ownership interest did not give him control over the company’s management.
In 1946, Forrest attempted to replace Kruppenbacher by persuading Patricia to support a change in leadership. She sided with Kruppenbacher, and Forrest’s attempt failed. He secured three seats on the nine-member board in 1947, but disagreements over the company’s direction continued.
When Kruppenbacher retired in 1959, Patricia’s husband, James Fleming, became president and CEO. Sales subsequently declined. A share transaction in 1962 left Forrest and Patricia each holding 41% of the company, with the remaining shares held by employees. Neither sibling had sufficient shares to exercise majority control independently.
In 1964, Patricia, who was seriously ill, agreed to sell her interest to Forrest under an arrangement providing continuing income for her family. The transaction finally gave Forrest control of the company founded by his father, more than thirty years after their separation. The American business was subsequently integrated with the enterprises Forrest had developed independently.
The prolonged struggle for control illustrates the distinction between ownership, influence and executive authority. Forrest’s position as a shareholder allowed him to participate in governance, but his ability to determine the company’s direction depended on the support of other owners. His eventual success followed years of negotiations and changes in shareholding, alongside the growth of his independent businesses.
Having secured control of the reunited enterprise, Forrest faced another succession challenge: deciding when and how to transfer authority to his own children.
Reunification and Centralised Leadership
After reunification in 1964, Forrest Mars Sr. brought the American and international businesses under his leadership. He imposed demanding standards for manufacturing efficiency, product quality and cost control, while directing profits towards further investment and expansion. His close attention to operational details had helped him build his independent enterprises, and he now applied the same approach to the reunited company.
His sons, Forrest Mars Jr. and John Mars, were already gaining substantial experience within the business. Forrest Jr. had worked in finance before taking responsibility for operations in Europe, including the development of a confectionery factory in the Netherlands. John also held operational responsibilities. Both were being prepared for leadership, but their father’s demanding management style left limited room for independent decision-making.
Accounts from former employees describe Forrest Sr. publicly criticising his sons over operational decisions. Following a fire at a Dutch factory, he reportedly held Forrest Jr. personally responsible despite circumstances beyond his control. On another occasion, he reprimanded John over decisions made at a factory opening. Such incidents reflected the difficulties of developing the next generation’s authority under a founder accustomed to exercising close personal control.
There was a striking parallel with Forrest’s own experience. Decades earlier, he had sought greater ownership and freedom to expand the business, only to encounter resistance from his father, Frank. Their disagreements eventually led Forrest to establish independent enterprises abroad. Now, as the head of a much larger company, Forrest Sr. faced a similar challenge from the other side: preparing capable successors while accepting that they would need authority of their own.
The outcome, however, was different. Rather than leaving his sons to establish separate businesses, Forrest eventually transferred responsibility for the family enterprise to them. In 1973, he stepped away from executive leadership and passed ownership to his three children, Forrest Jr., John and Jacqueline. Forrest Jr. and John subsequently became co-presidents in 1975, assuming joint responsibility for the company’s operations.
Unlike his own father, Forrest eventually transferred leadership to his children during his lifetime. The transition allowed the next generation to take responsibility for the enterprise, although his personal influence would continue.
Two Brothers Take the Lead
In 1973, Forrest Sr. stepped back from executive leadership and transferred responsibility to his children. His sons, Forrest Jr. and John, became co-presidents in 1975, marking a further step in the succession process. The transition separated the initial transfer of leadership responsibilities from the brothers’ formal appointment to joint executive roles.
The brothers shared responsibility for the company’s operations, while their sister Jacqueline also participated in senior family leadership. In 1983, the three siblings published the company’s Five Principles: Quality, Responsibility, Mutuality, Efficiency and Freedom. These principles provided a common framework for decision-making as the business continued to expand.
Retirement did not end Forrest Sr.’s involvement in the family’s affairs. Contemporary accounts describe him regularly telephoning his sons to criticise their management decisions. He also remained concerned about the company’s future under subsequent generations. According to a 1999 Washington Post report, family trusts gave him the right to veto a sale of Mars Inc., although the precise provisions have not been independently verified.
Forrest Sr. also returned to entrepreneurship, establishing Ethel M Chocolates in Nevada in 1981. His sons acquired the business in 1988, bringing another independently developed family enterprise into Mars. The episode echoed the earlier reunification of Forrest’s businesses with the company founded by his father, although this time the younger generation was responsible for the acquisition.
By the time Forrest Sr. died in 1999, his children had spent decades leading the company through international expansion. With ownership extending across a growing family, attention increasingly turned to how leadership and control would pass to the next generation.
From Family Executives to Professional Management
For three generations, leadership at Mars had remained closely tied to the family. Frank Mars built the original business, Forrest Sr. reunited the separate enterprises, and his children led their international expansion. Each succession had involved questions about which family member would exercise authority. By the end of the 1990s, however, the family faced another possibility: could Mars remain privately owned without a family member running its daily operations?
Forrest Mars Jr. retired from active leadership in 1999. Mars identifies 2001 as the beginning of non-family management, marking a significant change in how the enterprise was governed. Executive responsibility could now pass to professional managers, while the family continued to exercise its responsibilities as owners and through participation in the board.
This arrangement also changed what succession meant for the next generation. Family members no longer needed to pursue executive careers at Mars to remain involved in its future. Their responsibilities increasingly concerned the selection and oversight of leadership, the use of family capital and decisions about the company’s long-term direction. The distinction between ownership and management, which had caused so much friction between earlier generations, became an established feature of the business.
The company’s subsequent expansion illustrates the scale of decisions involved. Under non-family CEO Paul Michaels, Mars acquired Wrigley in 2008, bringing together major confectionery businesses in a transaction supported by external financing, including investment from Berkshire Hathaway. For the family, such an acquisition involved questions extending beyond operational performance: how much capital to commit, which financing arrangements to accept and how the investment would affect the privately owned enterprise.
Grant Reid succeeded Michaels in 2014. During his tenure, Mars expanded further into veterinary services and pet healthcare, developing a business whose activities extended well beyond the confectionery operations established by Frank Mars. Poul Weihrauch became CEO in 2022, continuing the succession of professional executives.
The expansion continued with Mars’s acquisition of Kellanova in December 2025, adding brands including Pringles, Cheez-It and Pop-Tarts. The transaction demonstrated how far the family enterprise had developed from its origins and the scale of investment decisions now associated with its ownership.
Professional management changed the family’s succession responsibilities. Owners now had to agree on executive appointments, performance oversight and the boundaries between family involvement and operational authority.
Mars has retained private family ownership alongside professional leadership, although its internal governance arrangements remain largely undisclosed. Succession now extends beyond executive appointments to the transfer of ownership responsibilities and effective oversight across generations.
The Cousin Generation and the Responsibilities of Ownership
By the time the fourth generation assumed greater responsibility, Mars had become a professionally managed enterprise owned by descendants of three siblings: Forrest Jr., John and Jacqueline. Unlike their parents, who had worked together in executive leadership, the cousins belonged to separate family branches with their own experiences, interests and priorities.
Several fourth-generation members have taken active governance roles. Victoria Mars and Pamela Mars-Wright have served as chairs, while Stephen Badger and Frank E. Mars have served as directors. Corporate documents also identify Marijke E. Mars as chair in 2023 and 2025. These appointments demonstrate continued family involvement in oversight, although the procedures for selecting chairs and allocating representation among branches remain private.
The cousin generation faces questions that extend beyond appointing professional executives. Major acquisitions, reinvestment, shareholder liquidity and the representation of different family branches all require decisions about how collective interests are managed. As ownership passes to the fifth generation, the number of individuals with an economic interest in the enterprise may continue to grow, along with their differing expectations.
Mars’s commitment to private ownership and substantial reinvestment makes these questions particularly relevant. Family shareholders may have different preferences regarding distributions, investment priorities or their own involvement in governance. Addressing such differences requires agreement on who participates in decisions, how authority is exercised and how disagreements are resolved.
The Mars family’s succession history has therefore moved from disputes over individual executive control towards the continuing task of coordinating ownership across several branches. Professional managers run the business, while family members retain responsibilities for its long-term direction. The precise voting arrangements, shareholder agreements and internal governance procedures remain private.
The Four Abundances: What Succession Meant Beyond Ownership
Mars’s succession decisions affected capital, family relationships, the timing of leadership transfers and shared principles. The Four Abundances help examine these consequences together.
Wealth: Independence, Control and Shared Capital
Frank and Forrest’s disagreements over ownership, investment and business direction eventually led to separate enterprises. Forrest’s later acquisition of control depended on shareholding changes and negotiations.
Subsequent generations maintained private ownership while reinvesting substantial profits into expansion and acquisitions. For family offices, the case highlights the challenge of balancing collective investment priorities with individual shareholders’ financial needs. Mars’s private arrangements offer limited insight into how the family manages these interests.
Relationships: Family Conflict and Working Cooperation
Frank and Forrest’s estrangement contributed to their separation in business. Forrest Sr. later experienced tensions with his own sons, particularly over management authority and independence.
Despite these difficulties, family leadership continued through both transitions. Later generations also maintained cooperation across family branches. The case illustrates how succession can proceed despite strained relationships, although unresolved disagreements may complicate the process and resurface in subsequent transitions.
Time: Preparing Successors and Relinquishing Authority
Forrest spent more than three decades developing independent businesses before gaining control of his father’s company in 1964.
His own succession followed a different timetable. He transferred leadership responsibilities in 1973, and his sons became co-presidents in 1975, although his personal influence reportedly continued after retirement.
These events highlight the importance of distinguishing between transferring operational responsibility, formal leadership and ownership rights. Preparing future generations for their responsibilities as owners also takes time, particularly when they do not work within the business.
Purpose: A Shared Commitment Beyond Individual Leaders
Frank and Forrest’s differing ambitions contributed to their separation, yet subsequent generations maintained a shared commitment to developing the enterprise.
The Five Principles — Quality, Responsibility, Mutuality, Efficiency and Freedom — provided a common foundation as Mars expanded and leadership changed.
Together with the family’s continued commitment to private ownership, these principles demonstrate the value of a shared direction. For family offices, the question is how such commitments are reflected in actual governance decisions, particularly when individual interests differ.
Where a Family Council Canvas Could Have Helped
The Family Council Canvas helps families discuss questions that formal corporate arrangements may leave unresolved: who should take on leadership, when authority should be transferred and how owners across different branches can align their expectations. It provides a framework for reaching a shared understanding that can inform subsequent governance decisions and formal agreements.
During Frank and Forrest’s disagreements, a structured discussion could have clarified Forrest’s expected role, ownership interests and strategic proposals. It could also have separated questions of recognition from decisions about capital and authority.
A second opportunity emerged as Forrest Sr. prepared his sons for executive responsibility. Clarifying delegated management authority, continuing personal involvement, and any retained legal rights could have helped the family distinguish these separate issues.
In a cousin-owned enterprise, the discussion would focus on concrete choices: who nominates directors, what qualifications are expected, how disagreements between branches are escalated, what information owners receive and how liquidity requests are considered. The public record does not establish Mars’s internal answers to these questions.
Across these transitions, the recurring challenge was how to recognise individual ambition while agreeing on the responsibilities and limits of shared authority.
The Family Council Canvas organises these discussions around Wealth, Relationships, Time and Purpose, helping participants examine how each affects a decision.
Such discussions cannot guarantee agreement. They can, however, identify conflicting expectations and clarify which decisions require a formal process.
What the Mars Case Teaches Family Offices
The Mars case offers several lessons for family office advisers, with five standing out in particular.
Succession Can Proceed Even When Family Relationships Remain Strained
Frank and Forrest’s estrangement did not prevent Forrest from eventually gaining control of the family enterprise. Leadership also passed to Forrest’s sons despite tensions within the family. However, these unresolved conflicts complicated the succession process, and similar disagreements over authority and independence resurfaced in the next generation.
A Successor’s Authority May Develop Independently of the Founder’s Endorsement
Forrest built businesses outside his father’s control. His eventual acquisition of the original company shows how experience, financial resources and share ownership can contribute to a successor’s authority.
Executive Responsibility And Ownership Authority Require Separate Consideration
Accounts of Forrest Sr.’s continued influence after his retirement illustrate the importance of clarifying the powers transferred to successors and any authority retained by the previous generation. The precise trust arrangements have not been independently verified.
Shared Family Leadership Depends On Agreed Decision-Making Arrangements
Forrest Jr. and John shared leadership for decades. As ownership spread across branches, governance had to accommodate a larger family group.
Professional Management Does Not Remove The Need For Succession Planning
Non-family executives took over management, leaving family successors responsible for informed ownership, strategic agreement and executive oversight.
For family office advisers, the case highlights the importance of clearly defining ownership and voting rights, board appointments, shareholder responsibilities, executive authority and succession planning. It also demonstrates the need for agreed processes to resolve disagreements between family branches. The Mars story illustrates why these responsibilities must be addressed individually, even when they are closely connected.
Closing Reflection
Frank and Forrest’s competing ambitions led them to build separate businesses. Forrest later gained control of his father’s company and eventually passed executive leadership to his sons, despite tensions over authority. Later generations retained family ownership and appointed professional executives.
At each transition, relationships, business capabilities and ownership rights affected who could exercise authority.
The entrepreneurial spirit that builds a family enterprise often comes with strong convictions about how things should be done. The Mars family’s history raises an important question: how can families nurture that ambition and independence while maintaining shared control of the enterprise?
And as the family grows, how can it preserve a common enterprise while giving individual members the freedom to pursue their own ambitions and contribute to the family legacy in their own way?
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. Images and excerpts from third-party sources are included solely for purposes of commentary and criticism, with attribution provided where sources are known.
References:
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. / Sharecafe, 2016. Mars to Buy Out Buffett. Sharecafe, 7 October. Available at: https://www.sharecafe.com.au/2016/10/07/mars-to-buy-out-buffett/.
Brenner, J.G., 1999. The Emperors of Chocolate: Inside the Secret World of Hershey and Mars. New York: Random House. Available at: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL361479M/The_emperors_of_chocolate.
Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), 2021. 110 Years of Family Business Ownership: A Conversation with Victoria Mars, Former Chairman and First Corporate Ombudsman of Mars. Owner to Owner, Q2 2021. Available at: https://www.bbh.com/us/en/insights/capital-partners-insights/110-years-of-family-business-ownership-a-conversation-with-victoria-mars.html.
City of Chicago, Department of Planning and Development, 2023. Mars Candy Factory, 2019 North Oak Park Avenue: Commission on Chicago Landmarks Final Designation Report. Chicago: City of Chicago Historic Preservation Division. Available at: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Publications/Mars_Candy_Factory_Final_Report.pdf.
Fortune Magazine, 1967. The Sweet, Secret World of Forrest Mars. Fortune, 75(5), pp. 154–160 (Archival record and transcript). Available at: https://www.madeinchicagomuseum.com/single-post/mars-inc/.
Mars, Incorporated, n.d. Our History. Available at: Mars corporate history.
Mars, Incorporated, n.d. The Five Principles. Available at: Official Five Principles page.
Mars, Incorporated, 2016. Mars, Incorporated to Combine Chocolate and Wrigley Segments to Create Mars Wrigley. Press Release, 6 October. McLean, VA: Mars, Incorporated Corporate Affairs. Available at: https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/press-releases/mwc-announcement.
Mars, Incorporated, 2025. Mars Completes Acquisition of Kellanova. Press Release, 11 December. Available at: Official acquisition announcement.
Mars, Incorporated, n.d. Our Story: Mars Ombudsman. Available at: Mars Ombudsman history.
Mars, Incorporated, 2022. Mars Leadership Succession: Grant F. Reid Decides to Hand Over the Reins as CEO. Press Release, 22 June. Available at: Mars press release.
S&P Global Ratings, 2016. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. Upgraded to ‘A’ on Full Control by Parent Mars Inc.; Outlook Positive. Regulatory Research Update, 6 October. Available at: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/9830700.
Weihrauch, P. and Reid, G.F., 2022. Reid Announces Retirement / Poul Weihrauch to Succeed as CEO. Financial Times Briefing & Corporate Announcement, June 2022. Available at: https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/articles/financial-times-mars-ceo-grant-reid-handing-over-reins.
Badger, S.M., 2019. Former Chairman Stephen Badger Talks Leadership, Life, Lessons. Mars News & Stories, 28 May. Available at: https://www.mars.com/news-and-stories/articles/leadership-life-lessons-stephen-badger.
