Democracy is touted as an answer to every leadership conundrum; a method through which all stakeholders can have their voices heard when matters touching on their collective interests were being discussed. What is not often discussed is its unsuitability for running family businesses.

The Kipng’etich* family in Nakuru took matters democracy to heart when their father died. Mzee [the old man] had been the stereotypical leader of family business; tough, uncompromising and dictatorial in executing his duties.

He considered himself the business’s only shareholder; all others, including his wife of 50 years, as servants, beneficiaries or spectators.

Nobody dared oppose much less counter his decisions. Discussions were held among the children long into the night after every tyrannical decision. Lamentations abounded about mzee’s legendary tight fist, his inconsiderateness for their well-being and the family’s reputation for frugality in the midst of what they considered immense wealth.

When mzee Kipng’etich died, there was, after the initial shock, a sense of elation among family members including the wife. Each felt liberated and were eager to experience for themselves the unadulterated luxury that Mzee had denied them for so long.

In the first order of business, the Kipng’etich family democratically elected one of the elder sons as leader. He was popular, easy going and did not seem to have much else to do.

In the second order of business, they voted themselves salaries and new company cars with all apart from their last-born sister immediately moving out of the family compound.

Against this sister’s advice, they voted themselves higher salaries and allowances; few of them involved themselves with the actual business of collecting rent and running the wholesale shop. Frustrated by what she saw, this sister quietly left the family to its own devices.

Life was good for the rest of the family; for about a year. Then the chickens began to come home to roost. It began with the wholesale shop running out of stock, then followed by the rental houses falling into disrepair.

The family suddenly realised that they had no money to restock the shop or to repair the houses; then they began selling property to survive. The last anyone heard of them, they were all back huddled in the compound they had deserted with such contempt; broke.

Leaders of family business ought to recognise that while democracy may work for governments, it has no place in family businesses that hope to succeed in the present and grow beyond the present generations.

To delegate critical decisions that have serious implications on the business’s future to an uneducated, inexperienced or apathetic group, even though they are family members, puts the business at serious risk.

Family businesses are private enterprises that are free to conduct their affairs as they see fit. Leaders can choose whichever method of leadership that suits them so long as they make decisions for the good of the business and in the interest of family members/staff stakeholders.

No leader of family business ought to imitate politicians in reducing organisational decisions to popularity contests. They must remember that they owe nothing to elections; their authority stems from the position they occupy in trust that they shall guide the venture to prosperity.