Cultural and Global Considerations in Family Governance

Family enterprises are shaped as much by relationships and values as they are by financial results. Decisions often reflect a mix of tradition, personal dynamics, and long-term vision. Governance, in this context, provides a framework for families to make choices together, resolve tensions, and prepare for transitions.

As families and their businesses expand across borders, governance becomes increasingly complex. A relatively new ISO standard, ISO 37000, offers a framework for corporate governance. But family governance is different. Children may grow up in different countries, companies operate in diverse markets, and advisors must navigate not only business structures but also cultural expectations. What works in one setting may not translate easily to another.

Recent research highlights this challenge. A review of 104 papers on family offices found that while interest in governance is growing rapidly, the field remains fragmented, particularly when it comes to cultural and global perspectives (Hayoz et al., 2025). This gap shows just how important it is to look beyond structures and policies, and to consider the wider context in which families operate.

The Influence of Culture on Governance

Beyond managing investments, a family office must invest time and resources in non-financial priorities such as governance, talent development, and family cohesion. These efforts support the family itself, as well as preserving its wealth.

Culture shapes how families make decisions, resolve disagreements, and imagine the future of their enterprise. A governance framework that works smoothly in one cultural setting may feel unfamiliar or even unworkable in another.

In collectivist cultures, decision-making often relies on consensus. The emphasis is on harmony, preserving relationships, and maintaining unity, even if this means moving more slowly. In more individualist settings, decisions are expected to be quicker, with authority delegated and efficiency prized. Leadership styles also differ: some families lean on strong patriarchal or matriarchal figures, while others prefer collaborative or merit-based structures.

Conflict resolution follows a similar pattern. In some cultures, open debate and direct confrontation are seen as signs of engagement. In others, preserving face and avoiding tension take precedence, leading to more indirect ways of settling disagreements. Communication norms matter too: high-context cultures rely heavily on shared understanding and implicit cues, while low-context cultures depend on formal documentation and explicit agreements.

These differences are not just theoretical. Advisors working across borders often find that tools designed for Western contexts (like formal boards or rigid family constitutions) require adaptation to gain acceptance elsewhere. Governance succeeds when it reflects the family’s own cultural roots rather than imposing an external template.

A study on Asian family offices presented a case in which a dominant patriarch always spoke first during investment committee meetings. Out of respect, non-family professionals typically aligned with his views. Over time, the patriarch realised that his influence was stifling discussion and limiting debate. With guidance from advisors, the process was changed so that he spoke last, after hearing and considering all perspectives. This adjustment allowed them to institutionalise a more balanced and professional decision-making culture (Family Firm Institute, 2024).

Recognising these cultural influences is the first step toward creating governance that feels legitimate. Families are more likely to commit to systems that reflect their own traditions and ways of working, rather than structures that feel foreign or imposed.

Generational Perspectives Across Cultures

Every generation approaches wealth and governance through the lens of its own experiences. Cultural context shapes these perspectives even further, creating differences not only between generations but also between regions.

Older generations in many parts of the world emphasise preservation and continuity. In Europe, for example, Baby Boomers often focus on safeguarding assets, ensuring stability, and passing on traditions. In Asia, similar patterns appear, but with an added emphasis on harmony and collective responsibility. By contrast, younger generations—particularly in North America and parts of Europe—are more likely to highlight individuality, innovation, and social or environmental impact.

This can create tension at transition points. A founder may value loyalty and careful stewardship, while their children push for bold investments in technology or sustainable ventures. These differences also reflect the cultural environments in which each generation came of age.

Understanding these layers helps families avoid framing conflicts as purely generational disagreements. Instead, they can be seen as conversations about values shaped by history, geography, and culture. When families create space to articulate and reconcile these perspectives, governance becomes a tool for integration and unity.

Evolving Perspectives on Culture and Governance

Our understanding of cultural differences in governance has deepened significantly over the past few decades. Early frameworks, such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (1980s), offered the first systematic way to compare societies along traits like individualism vs. collectivism or power distance. Although widely influential, Hofstede’s model has since been critiqued as too static and simplistic.

Later research, most notably the GLOBE study (1990s–2000s), expanded this view by comparing 62 societies, revealing that collectivist and individualist cultures are far from uniform. For example, Confucian Asia combines collectivism with hierarchy and long-term orientation, while Nordic Europe combines collectivism with egalitarianism and consensus.

Schwartz’s value surveys (1990s–2000s) added another layer, showing how universal values (such as self-direction, benevolence, or tradition) are weighted differently across regions. These insights helped explain why some families prioritise innovation and change, while others emphasise loyalty, respect, or continuity.

The table below highlights key cultural traits across regions and their governance implications for families.

Recent family business research has applied these cultural frameworks directly to governance. Colli (2003) highlighted the role of inheritance laws and legal traditions in Europe, while Casillas & Moreno-Menéndez (2017) showed how cultural and institutional contexts still shape family enterprise structures worldwide. More recently, Gómez et al. (2025) demonstrated how specific cultural dimensions — such as long-term orientation and power distance — directly influence outcomes in family businesses.

It is important to remember that culture is only one influence; it interacts closely with legal systems, institutional settings, and historical traditions. The challenge is to build systems that respect cultural traditions while also adapting to today’s global realities.

Global Dynamics in Family Enterprises

When families expand across borders, governance becomes a different order of complexity. Running businesses in multiple markets is hard enough, but layering on different legal systems, inheritance rules, and cultural expectations within the family makes it even more demanding.

Cross-border families face challenges ranging from scheduling meetings across time zones to navigating conflicting tax and succession laws. In some European countries, “forced heirship” rules limit how assets can be divided, while in common-law countries, trusts and holding companies offer far more flexibility. These differences shape the very foundation of governance structures.

Geopolitics also plays a role. Families with assets in regions of political instability must account for sudden risks, while those operating in highly regulated markets may need more formal governance to meet compliance standards. The global context can magnify tensions within families, especially when members live in different countries and absorb different social or business norms.

These challenges are magnified in multi-business family enterprises, where governance must account not only for diverse assets but also for different cultural and regulatory environments. As Steier, Chrisman and Chua (2015) note, “all of these challenges can affect families that own a single business, [but] the challenges tend to escalate as family assets become more diverse and the structure needed to monitor the assets more complex.” In such cases, governance must adapt across multiple contexts, each with its own cultural expectations and institutional demands.

The priorities of family offices are evolving in response. Growth remains important, but recent studies suggest a shift: governance and professionalisation are becoming the main focus, particularly as families spread globally. 

Global dynamics push families to think of governance less as a static structure and more as a living system that adapts to new jurisdictions, new risks, and new opportunities.

Cultural Sensitivity in Governance Structures

Designing governance for a family is never a one-size-fits-all exercise. Structures that look neat on paper may fail if they don’t reflect the values and expectations of the family itself. Cultural sensitivity is what turns formal frameworks into living, workable systems.

Family constitutions, charters, or councils are common tools, but the way they are used varies widely. In some settings, a constitution is a formal, binding document. In others, it functions more as a symbolic guide, expressing shared values and aspirations rather than rules. Councils, too, can be highly structured with elected representatives, or more informal, serving primarily as a forum for dialogue.

“Throughout this journey, family businesses must strike an equilibrium between tradition and modernity, preserving their unique values while embracing innovation.” (Nakpodia, 2024)

The lesson is clear: effective governance does not impose uniformity but creates a framework that feels authentic. By acknowledging cultural differences and integrating them into structures, families create systems that inspire commitment rather than compliance.

The Role of Advisors in Cross-Cultural Governance

Advisors play a pivotal role in shaping family governance, but their effectiveness depends on more than technical expertise. Cultural competence is just as important as legal, financial, or strategic knowledge.

Many governance models originate in Western contexts, emphasising formal boards, written constitutions, and clearly defined roles. When advisors apply these models without adaptation, they may encounter resistance — or even failure — in families whose cultures prioritise informal agreements, hierarchy, or consensus.

“There is evidence that governance in family businesses is highly variable, with outcomes depending not only on the structures adopted but also on how well they are adapted to the family’s culture and dynamics.” (Howorth & Kemp, 2019)

Advisors who succeed in cross-cultural settings often act less as architects and more as translators. They help families articulate their own values, then find structures that align with those traditions while still meeting modern standards of accountability. This may involve designing a council that combines informal dialogue with formal record-keeping to accommodate both senior authority and next-generation participation.

Diversity within advisory boards can also make a difference. Teams that bring different cultural perspectives are better positioned to anticipate blind spots and guide families in ways that feel both respectful and practical. Families are sometimes wary of new ideas or outside perspectives. Advisors can act as impartial guides in opening space for younger voices and external expertise while keeping the family aligned. This way, advisors can gently support the family through necessary transformations.

“Formal governance structures may provide legitimacy, but they only succeed when they are accepted and enacted by the family members themselves.” (Howorth & Kemp, 2019)

Families that work with advisors attuned to both technical and cultural dimensions of governance are best placed to build systems that function effectively while strengthening cohesion.

Strategies for Balancing Global and Local Needs

For families with global footprints, the central challenge is balance. Governance must be strong enough to create cohesion across borders, but flexible enough to honour local traditions and contexts.

“One effective approach is to combine international best practices with processes tailored to the family’s cultural environment. Tools such as independent boards, transparent reporting, and structured succession plans can be adapted to fit the family’s specific needs. For example, a family with members in Europe and Asia might adopt formal dividend policies while also maintaining family councils that prioritise harmony and consensus.

Technology is another bridge. Virtual family assemblies, digital governance platforms, and shared archives allow geographically dispersed members to stay connected and engaged. This not only strengthens decision-making but also helps build a shared identity across borders.

Education and training are equally important. Preparing the next generation means more than teaching finance. It also involves helping them navigate cultural differences, develop leadership skills, and build trust with relatives who may live in very different environments.

“The more you invest in governance for your family office, the more you communicate and interact with the family members, and the more you invest in the education of the next generation, the better the performance can be.” (Neubert, 2023)

Families that view governance as a framework that evolves alongside their global realities are better equipped to handle complexity without losing cohesion.

“Family governance is a framework for joint decision-making among family members based on shared values and a common mission.” (Neubert, 2023)

Modernisation and Future Trends in Family Governance

Governance in family enterprises has always reflected the needs and realities of its time. Today, those realities are changing at an unprecedented pace. Families are becoming more global, wealth structures more complex, and younger generations more vocal about sustainability and impact. Technology is also reshaping how decisions are made and information is shared. Together, these forces are pushing governance into a new era.

As Nakpodia (2024) notes: “Family business research in the next century will be dominated by technology-based governance, sustainable governance, globalisation and the validation for multi-board structures, greater attention to succession planning and diversity, and channeling significant resources to innovation.”

This transformation is being driven by several interlinked factors:

• Technology: Tools like digital platforms, AI-driven analytics, and virtual assemblies make it easier to manage dispersed families and complex portfolios. Governance processes are becoming more transparent and data-informed, but also more exposed to cyber risks and the need for digital literacy.
• Sustainability: Families are under growing pressure from both within and outside to align their governance and investment policies with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles. Next-generation leaders, in particular, see sustainability as inseparable from long-term success.
• Globalisation: Cross-border families and assets require governance frameworks that can adapt to multiple legal and cultural environments. This is leading to more layered governance models, including multi-board structures that separate regional oversight from global decision-making.
• Succession and Diversity: With demographic shifts, families must prepare for leadership transitions that are more inclusive of women, younger family members, and culturally diverse perspectives. Governance systems will need to integrate these voices without losing coherence.
• Innovation: Family offices are increasingly expected to channel capital into entrepreneurial ventures, impact investing, and new industries. Governance, therefore, must manage higher risk appetites while still sustaining stability.

For family offices, these trends mean that governance will no longer be a background process but a central strategic function. Offices that once focused primarily on investment management are now being asked to steward family culture, integrate sustainability goals, and coordinate across borders. To succeed, they will need governance systems that are at once professional, flexible, and deeply connected to family values.

Conclusion

Family governance goes beyond technical structures. It is a living system shaped by culture, history, and the realities of an increasingly global world. What works for one family may not resonate with another, and success depends on frameworks that reflect shared values and practical needs alike.

The field is still evolving, while many existing models remain fragmented, particularly when it comes to addressing cultural and global perspectives. Yet this is also where the opportunity lies. Families that take these factors seriously are better prepared to build governance structures that endure, even as circumstances change.

In the years ahead, cultural awareness, intergenerational dialogue, and global adaptability will define the next era of family governance. Moving beyond existing templates, the challenge for families — and their advisors — is to design systems that bridge worlds: past and future, tradition and innovation, local and global. In that balance, families can build the stability and resilience needed to sustain their enterprises across generations and borders.

References

Hayoz, L., Held, S., Kammerlander, N. and Mohnen, A. (2025) ‘Research on family offices: What is the way forward?’, Journal of Family Business Strategy. Elsevier. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877858525000117

FFI Digital (2024) Family office governance: An Asian business family perspective. Family Firm Institute. Available at: https://digital.ffi.org/editions/family-office-governance-an-asian-business-family-perspective

Colli, A. (2003) The history of family business, 1850–2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615009 Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227390157_The_History_of_Family_Business_1850-2000

Casillas, J.C. and Moreno-Menéndez, A.M. (2017) ‘International business and family business: Potential dialogue between disciplines’, European Journal of Family Business. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfb.2017.08.001.

Gómez, J. M., et al. (2025) ‘Multi-level determinants of satisfaction in family business: moderating role of cultural dimensions such as long-term orientation and power distance’, Journal of Business Research. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115455.

Steier, L., Chrisman, J.J. and Chua, J.H. (2015) ‘Governance challenges in family businesses and business families’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(6), pp. 1265–1280. Available at: https://effectuation.org/hubfs/Journal%20Articles/2017/06/Steier_et_al-2015-Entrepreneurship_Theory_and_Practice-1.pdf

Howorth, C. and Kemp, E. (2019) ‘Governance in family businesses: Evidence and implications’, Corporate Governance in Context. Emerald Publishing. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337797553_Governance_in_Family_Businesses_Evidence_and_Implications 

Nakpodia, F. (2024) ‘Corporate governance and family business: A perspective article’, International Journal of Management Reviews. Durham University. Available at: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1805216/corporate-governance-and-family-business-a-perspective-article

Neubert, E. (2023) The Power of Governance in Family Offices: Putting Family First. Bernstein Private Wealth Management (AllianceBernstein L.P.). Available at: https://www.bernstein.com/our-insights/insights/legacy/whitepaper/putting-family-first-the-power-of-governance-in-family-offices.html (Accessed: 10 September 2025).