India’s business community has been disrupted in recent decades by a number of high-stakes family conflicts that have inflicted significant financial harm and triggered mistrust, resentment, and hostility among the parties involved (Madiwala, 2024). One of the most notable examples is the Ambani family’s separation in the mid-2000s, which saw Mukesh and Anil Ambani engage in a lengthy and public feud over the division of their company Reliance Industries (Mukherjee, 2022). In a similar vein, the Bajaj family struggle in the late 1990s regarding control of Bajaj Auto, a major player in India’s automotive industry, illustrated the challenges of managing family relationships alongside business priorities (Khanna, 2022). To give a third example, the TVS Group, which is owned by a prominent South Indian business family, faced serious challenges during its complex separation. Disagreements over the valuation of group companies led to various family branches negotiating buyouts to maintain control over specific businesses (Jacob, 2022).
Apart from these large and prominent family businesses, India’s economic landscape is dominated by a vast number of small and medium-sized family-run enterprises. According to a Deloitte report, family businesses represented 85 percent of all Indian companies in 2013, significantly contributing to the country’s employment (Deloitte, 2013). More recently, a McKinsey report estimated that, by 2022, family-owned businesses accounted for over 75 percent of India’s Gross Domestic Product, one of the highest percentages globally, and this figure is projected to rise to 80 to 85 percent by 2047 (Goyal & Mukherjee, 2024). Given the prominence of family businesses in India and the negative impact that organizational conflict can have on performance (Brett, 1984; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Rahim, 2002), it is reasonable to conclude that conflicts within family businesses significantly influence the country’s economy.
The aim of this interview study is to gain a deeper understanding of the perceived causes, resolution strategies, and consequences related to conflict in Indian family businesses. We do so with the purpose of offering new empirical insights on how family members with managerial responsibilities experience and manage conflict in their business. This purpose is important for both theoretical and practical reason. Theoretically, both conflict management and family business are well-researched topics. However, the intersection of these fields has only recently garnered scholarly attention. Indeed, the scarce work in the domain of family business conflict (Alderson, 2015; Caputo et al., 2018; Davis & Harveston, 2001), shows the added value of zooming out and conducting contextualized qualitative studies on the causes, resolution strategies, and consequences of conflict in family business. The prevalence of family business in India makes it a fertile context for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon. Practically, given that family businesses make up a significant portion of India’s Gross Domestic Product, family disputes are both relatively common conflicts and involve high stakes; thus, the smooth functioning of family relations is crucial for the economy. Moreover, a deeper understanding of family business conflict in India can provide practical guidance for managers and family members on how to address tensions, prevent destructive escalations, and seek assistance from third parties like mediators or arbitrators.
To evaluate the collected interview data¸ we draw on Rahim’s well-established theory of managing organizational conflict (Rahim, 2000; 2002; 2023) which emphasizes the importance of understanding different conflict-handling styles (collaborating, competing, avoiding, accommodating, and, compromising) and their impact on workplace dynamics. We argue that, in the context of Indian family businesses, the effectiveness of each conflict-handling style depends on the situation and the specific needs of the individuals and organization.
Literature review
Family businesses play a critical role in the Indian economy. However, the intersection of family relationships and business operations creates unique challenges that can lead to disagreements and conflict. Conflict in family businesses can arise from various sources, including differences in values, management style, and generational perspectives (Caputo et al., 2018). While conflict can sometimes spur growth and innovation, if mismanaged, it can lead to negative outcomes such as family dysfunction, business inefficiency, and, in extreme cases, the collapse of the enterprise (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Recent research emphasizes that, beyond structural issues, relational resources like trust and shared vision are central to managing conflict constructively (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2021). These relational factors can potentially prevent destructive disputes and foster cooperation, particularly when supported by strong family governance mechanisms.
Family business conflict
A family business can be defined as an organization where ownership and decision-making are influenced by members of the same family, typically involving two or more family members in operational or strategic roles (Chua et al., 2003). This definition extends to businesses of all sizes, ranging from small family-owned shops to large multinational corporations. What distinguishes family businesses from non-family firms is the integration of family dynamics with business operations, which can create unique opportunities and challenges (Bird et al., 2002; Jaskiewicz & Dyer, 2017; Lansberg et al., 1997; Olson et al., 2003).
Family businesses are often characterized by their long-term orientation, commitment to preserving the family’s legacy, and emphasis on intergenerational ownership and management (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005, 2006; Miller et al., 2003). However, the fusion of personal relationships with professional duties means that family businesses are especially prone to conflict. Such conflicts can arise from differing visions for the business, personality clashes, and disputes over leadership transitions, among other issues (Sharma, 2004). Understanding the nature of conflict within these businesses and how to handle them effectively is critical to ensuring their sustainability and success.
Causes of family business conflict
Family business conflicts have many different causes, including task-related disagreements, relationship conflicts, and more specific issues such as different views on how to organize the succession. Task-related conflicts in family businesses involve disagreements over the business’s goals, strategies, or operational decisions. These conflicts often arise when family members have differing views on how the business should evolve. For example, younger generations may seek to innovate and expand, while older generations may resist change and prefer maintaining the status quo (Lansberg et al., 1997). In such cases, the family’s collective vision for the business can be at odds with the individual goals of family members, particularly when different generations have varying expectations about growth, risk, and profitability (Eddleston et al., 2013; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2007). Indeed, a recent study by Moreno-Gené and Gallizo (2021) suggests that generational differences can have a significant influence on strategy in family businesses. In addition to generational tensions, scholars have highlighted the role of “collaborative familiness,” defined as the integration of cognitive, structural, and relational resources that enable constructive conflict resolution in family firms (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2020; Habbershon & Williams, 1999).
The use of technology is another potential source of task-related conflict in family business often attributed to generational differences. However, there is also evidence suggesting that differences in the inclination and ability to use technology can be explained less by generational differences and more by individual differences (Deal et al., 2010). This suggests that conflicts could arise from stereotypical assumptions about certain generations rather than actual differences between generations (Hillman, 2014).
Relationship-related conflicts stem from interpersonal dynamics within the family, which often have a personal and emotional component. These conflicts can arise from sibling rivalry, disputes over inheritance, perceptions of favoritism, and the blurring of roles within the family business (Chen et al., 2019; Lambrecht, 2005). When family members cannot clearly distinguish between their roles in the business and their familial relationships, misunderstandings and resentment can develop, leading to significant interpersonal strife (Dyer Jr, 2003). Additionally, the generational differences in leadership style, communication preferences, and values can lead to clashes, especially when it comes to succession planning (Sharma, 2004).
A major source of conflict in family businesses is the succession process, where leadership transitions from one generation to the next. Succession conflict often arises when the older generation is reluctant to step down, while the younger generation feels unprepared to take over. This can be compounded by unclear succession plans or a lack of communication about leadership expectations (Koiranen, 2002; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). The emotional attachment family members have to the business makes succession particularly contentious, as the transfer of power may feel like a loss of identity or control (Kellermanns et al., 2008). As a result, unresolved succession issues can lead to significant conflicts that disrupt business operations and harm family relationships.
Management of family business conflict
Effectively managing conflict is crucial to mitigating its negative impacts and ensuring the long-term sustainability of family businesses. Numerous strategies have been proposed in the literature for managing conflict in family businesses. These strategies include the establishment of formal governance structures, succession planning, communication practices, and external mediation. A recent review underscores that conflict must be addressed at multiple levels, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational, to ensure sustainability and harmony (Alvarado & Euwema, 2024).
A first common strategy for managing conflict is the implementation of formal governance structures, such as family councils or advisory boards (Lansberg et al., 1997). These structures help establish clear roles and responsibilities, reduce ambiguity, and prevent personal conflicts from influencing business decisions. Formal governance can also ensure that succession plans are developed systematically, with input from all relevant family members, reducing the likelihood of leadership disputes during transitions (Lambrecht, 2005).
Second, clear and early succession planning is another essential tool for conflict management. A well-thought-out succession plan reduces uncertainty and minimizes generational conflicts by setting clear expectations regarding leadership transitions (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). Succession planning should be a transparent, multigenerational process that involves all family members and aligns their visions for the future of the business (Chrisman et al., 2004).
Open communication is central to resolving family business conflicts. Regular family meetings, where members can discuss concerns, air grievances, and align on business goals, can significantly reduce the risk of misunderstandings (Astrachan & McMillan, 2003; Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2007). Additionally, conflict resolution training for family members is critical in helping them manage disagreements constructively, particularly when emotions are involved. Training in emotional intelligence and active listening skills can help family members handle conflict more diplomatically (Kellermanns et al., 2012; Zellweger et al., 2012).
Finally, external advisors or mediators can play a vital role in resolving family business conflicts, especially when internal resolutions seem impossible. External parties provide objective perspectives and act as neutral facilitators, helping family members navigate personal emotions and make business decisions that are in the best interest of the company (Poza & Daugherty, 2010). Their role is especially important for succession planning or when family disputes threaten the continuity of the business (Zellweger & Sieger, 2012).
Consequences of family business conflict
Conflict in family businesses can have a range of negative consequences, particularly when it remains unresolved. The two primary outcomes are family dysfunction and business underperformance. Family dysfunction occurs when business-related conflicts spill over into personal relations. When family members are unable to separate business decisions from personal emotions, it can erode trust, cooperation, and mutual respect (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006). Prolonged conflict can lead to strained relationships, emotional distress, and even the alienation of key family members from the business. This dysfunction is often characterized by ineffective communication, high levels of tension, and unresolved interpersonal disputes (Lambrecht, 2005).
Unresolved conflict can undermine business performance. As noted by Kellermanns and Eddleston (2007), family businesses experiencing conflict often face poor decision-making, decreased innovation, and low employee morale. Family disagreements may distract from core business activities, such as strategic planning, financial management, and product development, leading to inefficiency and poor outcomes. High levels of emotional conflict also hinder collaboration, which is essential for long-term business success.
In extreme cases, unresolved conflict can lead to the dissolution of the family business (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). If family members are unable to reconcile their differences or establish a clear succession plan, the business may collapse due to leadership crises or ownership disputes. The breakdown in family relationships often contributes to the collapse, as there may be insufficient trust or alignment to keep the business running. In the Latin American context, the perdurability of family firms has been linked to their ability to manage intergenerational dynamics and externalize conflict resolution mechanisms (Almaraz Alvarado, 2020).
Conflict within family businesses is often viewed as disruptive, yet it can also serve as a catalyst for positive transformation and long-term sustainability. For example, in India, generational conflicts in family-owned enterprises have prompted shifts from traditional hierarchical models to more professionalized management structures, fostering innovation and clearer governance (Cohen, 2008; Joshi et al. 2018). In East Asian cultures such as Japan and South Korea, intergenerational disagreements have encouraged strategic succession planning and the integration of external talent, which strengthens competitiveness in global markets (Bennedsen et al., 2015). Similarly, in Middle Eastern family firms, disputes over control and inheritance have led to the establishment of family constitutions and advisory boards, promoting transparency and conflict resolution (Lansberg et al., 1997). These examples illustrate that, when managed constructively, conflict can lead to greater adaptability, modernization, and cohesion within family-owned businesses.
Cultural and structural factors
India’s cultural orientation, as characterized by Hofstede’s dimensions, is collectivist. Hofstede (2011) defined collectivism as a cultural trait in which individuals see themselves primarily as part of cohesive in-groups, often extended families, which provide protection in exchange for loyalty. Indian families exemplify this dimension, prioritizing interdependence, filial obligations, and hierarchical family roles (Chadda & Deb, 2013). This collectivist orientation finds everyday expression in caregiving responsibilities, decision-making processes, and intergenerational support systems within families. The traditional Indian joint family system, often comprising three or more generations, embodies horizontal and vertical collectivism, emphasizing both equality among siblings and deference to elders. Empirical research demonstrates that collectivism remains prominent across urban and rural India, although urbanization introduces slight shifts towards individualistic tendencies (Jha & Singh, 2011). Despite structural changes, such as a rise in nuclear families and shrinking household sizes (Chakravorty et al., 2021), collectivist values continue to shape familial obligations and expectations. Even in emerging family forms, mutual support, deference to elders, and joint decision-making remain central.
Gaps in existing research
Based on the above literature review, we argue that, while the literature on family business conflict has made important contributions, several critical gaps remain. First, existing studies often generalize generational conflict without sufficiently unpacking how these tensions manifest in specific operational domains, such as technology adoption or employee management. This can lead to erroneous assumptions that generational resistance is uniform or purely age-based, overlooking more nuanced interpersonal and contextual drivers. Second, the prevailing discourse in family business literature tends to treat conflict as primarily dysfunctional, emphasizing its destructive outcomes while neglecting its potential as a constructive and strategic force. As a result, the possibility that well-managed conflict can stimulate innovation and organizational learning is frequently underexplored. Third, much of the literature focuses on structural or task-based causes of conflict, with insufficient attention to emotional and historical antecedents, such as sibling rivalry or unresolved interpersonal grievances, which are central to understanding conflict in family firms. Finally, recommendations for conflict resolution often lack cultural specificity, assuming that Western models of governance and mediation are universally applicable. While existing literature frequently views conflict as a liability, newer perspectives advocate for understanding its constructive potential, especially when embedded in relational trust and shared vision (Alvarado-Alvarez et al., 2021). This overlooks how relational embeddedness and cultural norms, particularly in collectivist societies like India, influence both the sources of conflict and the strategies used to address it.
Method
This study gathered data from 22 senior managers of family-owned businesses in India through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling techniques (Bell et al., 2022). Convenience sampling involved contacting the researchers’ professional networks via email and LinkedIn. Snowball sampling was employed by asking initial respondents to recommend other managers who might be willing to participate in the study. These referred individuals were subsequently contacted directly via email. The snowball method was particularly useful for broadening the participant pool. Through these combined approaches, we conducted interviews with 22 participants. Recruiting participants proved challenging due to the sensitive nature of discussing conflict within family businesses. However, with the sample size of 22 participants, we achieved thematic saturation, as no new insights or themes emerged from additional interviews (Guest et al., 2006).
Participants were selected based on four specific criteria. First, their business had to employ at least one family member of the participating senior manager in an operational role. Second, the participating senior manager needed to be members of the business’s founding family. Third, they had to have experienced conflict in the business, either as a participant or observer. Fourth, they were required to hold a managerial position within the organization.
Table 1 Overview of participants
As outlined in Table 1, the participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 65 years, with an average age of 38.9 years. Among the 22 managers interviewed, nine held positions as managing directors, chief executive officers, or partners, three were in operations management, and two were in accounts management. The remaining participants held roles such as head of business and technology, financial manager, change manager, human resources manager, compliance manager. The sample represented a diverse range of industries, including automotive, healthcare, energy, legal, chemical, public relations, agriculture, trading, consulting, hospitality, textiles, digital services, and event management. Of the 22 managers, ten (45.5%) identified as female and twelve (54.5%) as male.
The interviews were conducted in English using video conferencing tools, with each session lasting between 40 to 60 minutes. Audio recordings were made of each interview and transcribed verbatim. Given the emotional sensitivity of the subject and the need to deeply explore participants’ perceptions and experiences of conflict, interviews were chosen as the primary data collection method (Kallio et al., 2016).
A semi-structured interview format was employed, incorporating a predetermined set of questions while allowing flexibility for follow-up inquiries based on the flow of the conversation. This approach enabled the exploration of participants' perspectives, uncovering new themes and insights. The full interview schedule, including all questions, is provided in Appendix 1. Readers interested in accessing the primary data may contact the corresponding author, as the data are not publicly available to protect participants’ confidentiality.
Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) guidelines and supported by NVivo software. The analysis followed seven steps. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by repeatedly reading the transcriptions. In the second step, we coded relevant segments of the text, labeling them according to the research inquiry. The coding process was collaborative, with all authors agreeing on codes catalogued in a shared NVivo database. Subsequent steps involved identifying themes and sub-themes, aligning them with broader patterns of meaning derived from the literature review. The themes and sub-themes underwent iterative revisions until the authors reached a consensus on their relevance to the research question. This process reduced the initial 23 themes to 19, after which final naming of themes and selection of illustrative quotes were completed. The final step involved identifying similarities and differences in interviewees’ responses.
Rahim’s theory of conflict management (Rahim, 2000; 2002; 2023) was used as a conceptual lens to guide both the analysis and interpretation of the interview data. While the interview questions were developed inductively to explore participants’ lived experiences of conflict, the coding and categorization of conflict management strategies in the analysis stage were explicitly informed by Rahim’s five conflict-handling styles: collaborating, competing, accommodating, avoiding, and compromising. Participants’ descriptions of how they navigated conflicts, through statements reflecting assertiveness, cooperation, withdrawal, or yielding, were systematically interpreted using Rahim’s framework. In particular, we sought to identify which of Rahim’s styles appeared most prevalent in participants’ responses and whether any patterns emerged between the type of conflict described and the conflict management style employed. This allowed us to uncover context-specific tendencies, for example, the frequent use of avoidance in hierarchical family structures or collaboration in response to succession-related tensions.
Following recent contributions by Braun and Clarke (2019, 2021a, 2021b) on reflexivity in qualitative research, we acknowledged the influence of our individual backgrounds, positions, and experiences on the interpretation of data. Reflecting on these roles, we recognized how our identities and personal experiences with conflict shaped patterns of interpretation. Differences in age, gender, and cultural backgrounds among the researchers occasionally led to varying responses to the data. To address these potential biases, we sought consensus during data interpretation and presentation.
Results
19 themes emerged from the thematic analysis which we grouped into three categories: causes of, strategies to manage, and consequences of family conflict, as shown in Table 2
Table 2 Overview of themes
Causes
To understand the potential causes of conflict in family businesses in India, we asked participants to describe what, in their view, caused conflict in their companies. The overarching theme alluded to in almost all responses (86.7 percent) was a difference in opinions among family members regarding the company’s strategy, as expressed, for instance, by participant P01:
“Difference of vision, difference of opinion, difference of strategy, difference in the way you think between the various stakeholders, in a family business environment, which ultimately results in what will be a conflict.” (P01)
When we asked participants to reflect in more detail on the specific factors that caused those differences in opinion, participants mentioned a range of factors, such as generational differences, undefined roles, unclear succession planning, ineffective communication, sibling rivalry, and historical family patterns.
Generational differences
Multi-generational differences were mentioned by ten participants as a source of conflict in their family business. For instance, reflecting on the interactions with his son and his father, participant P11 stated:
“The interactions which I have now with my son are very, very different to those with my father. So, they have more liberty and freedom today to raise issues, have disagreements on certain principles, goals and policies.” (P11)
Commenting on the varied approaches that members of different generations take towards the company’s strategy and vision, participant P05 observed:
“The generational difference in wavelength, ideas on how to solve a problem or the future vision for the company, its direction, there is a slightly varied approach, and when there’s varied opinions, this is when these conflicts come.” (P05)
In a similar vein, participant P16 stated:
“That’s when things get tricky because there are couple of factors here. One is that my father is the eldest one, so age comes into play, right? So, in a lot of cases my uncle just does not push further because he is the younger one. Elders are given more respect and elders are given more authority in general.” (P16)
Participant P22 talked about tensions between his father and himself:
“My father is still fully functional in the business. He works seven days a week. He has veto power and sometimes this makes it unfair because we as youngsters would bring in a lot of fresh ideas, but he wouldn’t always accept them.” (P22)
Another issue reported by six participants was that there were incompatible perspectives between members of different generations on how to manage employees and incorporate technology in the company. For instance, participant P08 stated:
“They are so outdated in their thinking, how they treat employees, and they really don’t know how the world has moved forward, how technology has progressed. They are so not open to that, and it gets so frustrating for the third generation, my cousins, siblings and all.” (P08)
One participant, participant P11, described how he used his managerial authority to reinforce decisions that are not respected by members of younger generations:
“So, there have been so many occasions when I’ve had to use my position as Managing Director to reinforce certain decisions which have not been seen very favorably by the next generation.” (P11)
Undefined roles
Seven participants identified overlapping roles and responsibilities as a significant cause of conflict. For instance, participant P09 remarked:
“The thing is: conflict can arise out of many things, like roles. What is my role? What is your role?” (P09)
Stressing the lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities as a driver of conflict, participant P14 stated:
“A lot of the conflicts faced by family members is due to no clarity in cross-functional work, their roles and responsibilities or lack of clarity in what they’re accountable, responsible for and not.” (P14)
Succession planning
A lack of succession planning was emphasized as a source of conflict by eight participants. For instance, participant P10 expressed the image of a headless body representing the company due to a lack of succession planning:
“Before he passed, he did not have a succession plan. So, what happened when the head fell? The hands and legs went in all directions. Literally ripped the body apart and the company suffered.” (P10)
In a similar vein, participant P05 reflected on the negative consequences of not addressing the question of who will lead the company following the company manager’s retirement:
“Who is going to take over? Is it going to be professional people? Outsiders or which family member? Will there be a restructuring and movement of people? Because we had issues like that in the past when people were moved to other departments and caused major drama.” (P05)
Participant P13 mentioned how a lack of choice regarding succession decisions could also be a factor in starting conflict in family-run businesses:
“They wanted me to join the family business, and I was always rebelling against it and didn’t want to come back from London after studies.” (P13)
Ineffective communication
Another source of conflict that was mentioned by five participants was the lack of communication and the repercussions of ineffective communication. To give just one representative example, participant P04 stated:
“[…] communication-related wherein due to lack of communication or miscommunication, you know, a lot of conflicts can happen.” (P04)
Competition between siblings
Four participants attributed conflict they faced in their business to competition between siblings. For instance, participant P07 reported:
“My brother and I have two completely contrasting natures. He’s usually extremely laid back, while I try to take a very proactive approach to work. And this feels like we’re pulling in opposite directions and it’s really, really difficult to manage at times because we have a very competitive relationship from a young age, and it usually ends up being very hostile.” (P07)
Talking about the difficult decision-making process among his children as a cause of conflict, participant P09 observed:
“Conflict between them [the children] because of the decision-making process, the first son, may be deciding some particular thing, which is not accepted by the other sisters or brothers.” (P09)
Talking about reoccurring conflicts between his two uncles, participant P17 stated:
“So, I would actually find myself between my two uncles, as one would say something, and the other would say something, and I would have to kind of choose which side to go. Like, who would I listen to: the bigger brother or the younger brother?” (P17)
Historical family patterns
Five participants highlighted historical family patterns and unresolved past issues as a source of conflict in family business. For instance, participant P01 reported:
“With one of my family members, there has been a kind of a silent war which has been happening since many years.” (P01)
In a similar vein, P11 expressed:
“You know, the history with each other is a lot more in a family setting than if you would compare with a colleague in a company which is not yours.” (P11)
Unresolved interpersonal and relationship conflicts between family members were reported to have the potential of spilling over into business conflicts. For instance, participant P03 reported:
“So, when, when there is a conflict which has arisen between myself and my husband, it is more so a spillover of our personal relationships that have come into play.” (P03)
Differences regarding power, authority, and control due to engrained family structures were mentioned as a cause of conflict. For instance, participant P10 stated:
“It’s all based on, uh, the structure of the family and who has more power and who has more voice and who is more in control.” (P10)
Conflict management strategies
When asked to describe their strategies for managing conflicts in their family business, participants described a diverse range of strategies. Some strategies were based on individual actions, some were more systemic, and others involved the help of third parties, such as professional mediators. We grouped the strategies described by the participants into eight themes: collaborating, competing, accommodating, compromising, avoiding, situational, preventing, and involving third-party strategies.
Collaborative strategies
The strategies most frequently mentioned by participants fell into the category of collaborative conflict management. Nine participants claimed to use a collaborative conflict management style. While different words like “integrating”, “sitting around the table”, “solution with everyone’s input” were used by the participants to describe their collaborative conflict management strategies, our analysis of the codes with respect to the context in which they appeared revealed their overall collaborative character. For example, participant P13 stated:
“I prefer if it is collaborative where we both talk about it.” (P13)
Participant P05 stressed the importance of communication and the integration of everyone’s thoughts:
“I communicate with everyone and try to integrate everyone’s thoughts. Generally, we all come together and, and we make sure we face the conflict head-on.” (P05)
Participant P01 pointed out that he first tries to understand the cause of a conflict before attempting to resolve it:
“I have approached conflict through the process of understanding the root cause of the conflict.” (P01)
Having a sense of ownership was also emphasized, as participants spoke about the importance of taking responsibility for resolving conflicts in the business, whether by providing a new perspective or, as mentioned by P08, by de-escalating:
“First de-escalate, or I would try to, convince the other person to make the person really understand and believe that the problem is elsewhere, maybe with that person or with something else […].” (P08)
Participant P10 mentioned the importance of reflecting collaboratively on the problem that caused a conflict and on possible solutions before making a unanimous decision:
“We all sit around the table, reflect and understand what the problem is and come up with a solution with everybody’s inputs given equal importance, we debate each other’s point and finally take a unanimous call.” (P10)
Four participants emphasized the significance of open and transparent communication and listening as essential elements for effectively approaching conflicts. Participant P07 stated:
“Usually, when we communicate, a lot of us usually hear the other person, but we don’t really listen. And I think active listening is something that I tend to use, and it is kind of like my secret ingredient when I handle conflicts.” (P07)
In the same vein, participant P05 stated:
“I’m an open book, so when I’m faced with conflicts, I prefer to be very transparent and open about what my side of the problem is and expect the same from the other person.” (P05)
For participant P13, the link between communication and collaboration was evident, as expressed in the statement below:
“To manage conflict, the best strategy is to communicate and resolve conflicts through good communication. And I prefer if it is collaborative where we both talk about it and, you know, try to come up with a solution.” (P13)
Some participants commented on the importance of emotional intelligence and empathy for collaboratively solving family business conflicts. For instance, participant P13 expressed:
“And considering how emotions are all over the place, understanding them and putting yourself in your family’s shoes really pays off.” (P13)
This was echoed by participant P15:
“I try to read the other person’s emotions and respond accordingly that has helped me get through these situations smoothly.” (P15)
Competitive strategies
The second most frequently reported type of conflict management strategy can be described as competitive. Six participants used words, such as “assertive”, “autocratic”, “very controlled”, “competing”, etc. to characterize competitive strategies. For instance, participants P04 referred to “assertive behavior”:
“Maybe there’s a situation where I have to be more assertive, wherein it’s actually impacting the end goal, then I tend to be purely assertive.” (P04)
Participant P06 mentions a truly controlled and autocratic conflict resolution style:
“And the resolving of that has been not through integration or a democratic process but more autocratic and in a very controlled manner.” (P03)
In a similar vein, participant P04 used the word “confronting” to describe her conflict management strategy:
“Basically, at least in the last decade or so, I have always, confronted or you know, taken part in a conflict situation.” (P04)
Accommodating strategies
Five participants reported yielding to the needs of the other party in conflict situations. This accommodating strategy is characterized by abandoning one’s own needs for the satisfaction of the others’ needs. For instance, participant P05 stated:
“But there have been very many instances wherein I have had to accommodate and integrate.” (P05)
Yielding to the other party’s needs can happen to ensure harmony even if this is not the preferred option as expressed in the statement by participant P12:
“So, I had to oblige, even though I was not happy with the decision, I had to finally agree to mom, to ensure harmony.” (P12)
Similarly, participant P07 described a situation where an accommodating strategy was required to not jeopardize a family relationship:
“There have been many times when conflict situations have happened because I undervalued my younger sibling, and to diffuse those situations, I have had to take a more accommodative stance for dad, the greater good of our relationship and ultimately the company.” (P07)
Compromise strategies
Only three participants perceived themselves as employing a compromise strategy in conflict situations. For instance, participant P18 explained:
“We have very clear areas of practice which are segregated. So, more or less everyone is dealing with their own set of clients. There isn’t so much of a cross working or collaboration for work unless it’s a large assignment. This demonstrates a compromise to avoid stepping on each other’s toes by keeping work areas separate.” (P18)
Two participants who reported using this strategy considered it to be the strategy they intended to use in the future. For instance, participant P15 stated:
“Oh, I tend to compromise in many situations because I have just joined the business and cannot be so rigid when I am in the learning stage. I have also seen many of the seasoned members, especially my uncle, who does compromise, and it helped very many situations, so I do think it’s a good strategy to keep up for my future.” (P15)
Avoiding strategies
Three participants mentioned having used avoiding strategies to manage conflict in certain circumstances, especially situations involving older family members. For instance, participant P08 stated:
“That said, I don’t engage in conflict situations with my father or other first and second-generation family members, even my cousins don’t. We consciously avoid those situations because we are treated like employees, and we have seen that there is no point going into those situations when it is a losing battle at the end, you know.” (P08)
A more general strategy to avoid conflict was described by participant P02:
“I fall back and try to move away from the situation and see how time can heal this conflict over time, or the conflict will resolve on its own.” (P02)
In a similar vein, participant P19 stated:
“So, I tend to put it under the carpet for a while hoping that it goes away, but it doesn’t. Then we will have to face it at some point.” (P19)
Situational strategies
Two participants described situational strategies in that they reported adjusting their strategy to the specific conflict situation. For participant P13, the conflict management strategy is determined by the counterpart’s personality:
“Like for me, I think conflict management depends on what kind of person you’re dealing with on the other side. So, you have to tweak your strategy to resolve the conflict based on the other person, not just have some fixed style to deal with conflict in general.” (P13)
Participant P03 reported using two different conflict management strategies, collaboration and competition, depending on the counterpart’s personality, the specific situation, or the context of the conflict:
“As I told you, it’s a combination, a dominating and an integrative style usually. But it may change depending on the person or the situation, or the context.” (P03)
Third-party strategies
Nine participants underlined the significance and the benefits of professional mediation in relation to family business conflicts. For instance, talking about mediation, participant P01 expressed:
“Yes, it [mediation] is a very effective tool. Provided the person is known to be an unopinionated and unbiased person, then everybody will accept that person. No need for a stranger. It can be a known person also.” (P01)
For participant P04, mediation was even the best method to manage family business conflict:
“I think a professional mediator is always the best method of approaching it because, you know, be it micro or macro, you need to resolve it.” (P04)
Regarding the choice of the mediator, participants held a range of differing opinions. For instance, for participant P13, there was a risk of exposing “cracks” within the system, when employing an external mediator:
“Mediation should be done by somebody internally within the company. […] cracks within the system should not be communicated to the rest of the organization. The organization should see the management as a single, unified unit because that can make other employees question or use that to their advantage.” (P13)
Participant P03 argued for using a family member as a mediator:
“Personally, I would not want an external force to come in for conflict management. Somebody in the group must take the lead to penetrate these hardcore personal biases and try and remove that and bring a semblance of cohesiveness. So, somebody should do that in the family itself.” (P03)
Participant P20 mentioned both her mother and grandmother being mediators in family business conflicts:
“Like my grandmother would get involved and just say “you just divide it equally”. My grandmother and my mother would try to just end the fight or the conflict.” (P20)
However, other participants advocated for the use of external professionals as mediators, such as therapists, consultants, and licensed mediators, due to personal dynamics and biases within the family. For instance, participant P15 explained:
“But never these family friends. You know the Ambani family, right? Khokilaben approached a family friend instead of employing a professional mediator, and many insiders say he was secretly biased, and that is why Anil got a bad deal. So always better it be a professional.” (P15)
When facing conflicts between employees or junior members of the business, participant P12 suggested internal mediation conducted by managers within the company:
“The thing is, people on the lower levels, the disputes are pretty petty, nothing too complicated about it. And the leaders or heads of the departments will be able to handle these kinds of situations. They would act as mediators trying to make both the parties understand and then solve the problem.” (P12)
Participant P12 also highlighted that mediation training could help maintain an internal resolution system empowering the human resources department to leverage professional mediation techniques.
In contrast to the favorable statements regarding mediation expressed by the above participants, one participant P14 questioned the usefulness of mediation in relation to family business conflict:
“I really don’t think that is required, we handle conflicts pretty well and don’t really need external mediators in any scenario. And maybe it’s my culture, but in my family and even in the company, we don’t air our dirty laundry in public in any context.” (P14)
Other strategies
Some strategies described by interviewees did not fit into any of the five conflict management styles categories described by Rahim or the categories “situational strategies” and “third-party strategies”. We, therefore, grouped them under the following umbrella category “other strategies”.
Five participants highlighted the importance of resolving conflict promptly or preventing conflict in the first place. For example, participant P01 commented:
“Some conflicts require immediate attention. And those which require immediate attention, require immediate fix, and attention cannot be kept for an analysis.” (P01)
The need for a systemic approach to conflict management surfaced in three interviews. For instance, participant P09 recommended the use of a formal resolution process guided by rules and regulations:
“I think there is a need for procedures or rules and regulations about how to handle that situation and the whole decision-making process post-conflict, that framework will act as a guiding light within the organization.” (P09)
In a similar vein, participant P01 suggested the use of a committee to resolve organizational conflicts within the family business:
“Structure would be that, for example, if there is a people-related conflict within the organization, there will be a committee which will address that. And like I said earlier, there has to be a similar methodology where there is a central point or a hierarchical position from where the final resolution is taken, or it arises from.” (P01)
The need for a comprehensive succession plan to prevent conflict was identified by participant P09 as a strategic initiative that should be undertaken in the context of conflict resolution for the long-term survival of the business:
“There needs to be very clear succession plan or exit plan for companies. Even though it’s a family-owned business, people might reach a certain state, and they might want to sell the company.” (P05)
Another strategy mentioned by participants for preventing conflict within the family business was to train and upskill employees on emotional intelligence: For instance, participant P07 recommended:
“Onboarding people to do these emotional intelligence seminars and trainings is a great way to build awareness and train people. In family businesses it’s very much required for us as well as the employees.” (P07)
Consequences
Apart from exploring the potential causes of conflict and management strategies in family businesses in India, we were also interested to hear participants’ reflections on the consequences of conflict in their businesses. Participants reported a range of consequences, both negative and positive, which we grouped into five themes: emotional consequences, destructive consequences, learning and understanding, business growth, and innovation. Overall, participants considered positive consequences of conflict as more prevalent than negative consequences.
Emotional consequences
Ten participants reported experiencing more intense emotions because of family business related conflicts compared to other types of conflict. For instance, participant P11 observed:
“[…] conflicts are more intense, emotionally, in such a setting than if you compare it with a non-family, regular enterprise.” (P11)
Knowing family members on a more personal level than other individuals, four participants mentioned that family members had a particular propensity to internalize business-related conflicts and to take them personally. For instance, participant P03 stated:
“So, I know the differences. So, we tend to personalize a lot of issues when it comes to family-owned business.” (P03)
For participant P07, the reason why family business conflicts are more emotionally loaded is rooted in the personal views and ideas family members often have of each other:
“We tend to undermine each other because of certain personal ideas that we have of other family members from home. This actually invites much more emotional responses easily.” (P07)
Destructive consequences
Three participants, P07, P10, and P21 stated that they experienced family business conflict as having overall negative and destructive consequences. Participant P07 expressed:
“There is a myth that conflict can be integrative, I don’t think that is a situation though. It’s impossible to have like win-win situation always. One person may be on the losing end.” (P07)
Participant P10 stated:
“Oh no, in my experience conflict is almost always a negative thing, not constructive, it’s rarely positive, I think it’s because of the hostility in the relationships.” (P10)
Participant P20 explained:
“So, my father made a lot of mistakes in terms of financial matters. He would redistribute [money] to his family members. That created a lot of problems for my brother and a lot of rift between my brother and my father.” (P20)
Two other participants, P09 and P04, mentioned time as a condition for conflict to be constructive. If addressed too late, the consequences of conflict will be negative. Participant P09 stated:
“[…] or as early as possible because the more you delay, the solving a conflict, the bigger the problem. Especially in the family business, the more you delay a conflict, the distance becomes more.” (P09)
Participant P04 expressed:
“Because if you take it to a later date, you know, you extend your conflict, then, those are the conflicts that never end.” (P04)
Understanding and learning
Nine participants viewed conflict as an opportunity for understanding and learning. For participant P12, conflict represented an opportunity for understanding:
“So, conflict is basically, let’s say, between two people, it helps to understand each other in a better way.” (P12)
Similarly, for participant P03, experiences of intergenerational conflict can help bridge gaps in understanding the perspectives of different stakeholders and provide valuable business insights. Participant P03 stated:
“So, the vision that we share, the perspectives to any situation that happens and crisis management, when it happens, there is a very different perspective in all these three generations.” (P03)
A willingness to understand the other party’s perspective and a positive approach to resolving conflict are two conditions for a conflict to have constructive consequences mentioned by participant P13:
“It is important when you are in a conflict to kind of absorb the content of the other person’s message, without getting emotionally bogged down by the external way the conflict happens. So, I think yes, conflict can be constructive if you have the right attitude.” (P13)
For participant P12, conflict represented an opportunity for learning:
“I see it as a positive thing. At least, from my perspective, you get to learn a lot of things.” (P04)
Business growth
Four participants emphasized that conflict is part of a process that can foster the growth of a business. For instance, participant P01 stated:
“Conflict is certainly a constructive tool, so, only where there are conflicts there can be progress. There is no progress without conflict […]. If you have an understanding that there is a learning behind the conflict, then you can actually analyze either during or post the conflict and have a lot of insights.” (P01)
For participant P11, conflict could result in a better alignment of the business strategy and its goals leading to a better business performance:
“For us, disagreements usually help us re-evaluate our strategies and goals, and usually, once the dust kind of settles, we are more aligned with each other than before.” (P11)
Innovation
Four participants experienced conflict as a catalyst for positive change bringing underlying issues to the surface and fostering innovation within the company. For instance, participant P13 commented on the potential of conflict to trigger innovative solutions:
“[…] if you can manage conflict well, you might come up with solutions to problems that you did not know before.” (P13)
Participant P11 described conflict as a potential source of new ideas:
“Our family and the business grew when, I can particularly recall one incident, when fights about the future of the company […] and through discussions from it, we got ideas. If it wasn’t for those conflicts, we would have never innovated the way we have.” (P11)
Patterns of causes, management strategies, and consequences
When analyzing the data, we identified patterns of how specific conflict management styles emerge in response to particular causes, and how they shape the consequences of family business conflicts. Collaborative strategies were reported to be employed by participants who also talked about conflicts arising from undefined roles, succession planning, and generational differences. Participants emphasized the role of open communication and integrative problem-solving in navigating these complex issues. For example, collaboration was linked to mitigating the emotional intensity of conflicts tied to succession planning, fostering alignment, and reducing long-term dissatisfaction. This style was also noted for its positive consequences, such as innovation and business growth, as it encouraged collective problem-solving and leveraged diverse generational perspectives.
Hierarchical family structures were reported to often drive the use of avoidance or accommodating strategies, particularly in addressing conflicts stemming from generational differences and family patterns. For instance, participants reported avoiding direct confrontation with senior family members to maintain respect and avoid escalating tensions. While this approach preserved short-term harmony, it was also linked to unresolved tensions and a tendency for issues to fester. Accommodating behaviors, similarly, were tied to the emotional consequences of conflict, such as personalized grievances, with individuals prioritizing relationships over their own needs.
Participants linked competing strategies to power struggles arising from sibling rivalry and disputes over leadership. Participants using this style aimed for decisive outcomes but acknowledged its potential to worsen relationship strains and hinder long-term collaboration. These strategies often heightened emotional consequences, such as resentment, while creating an atmosphere of contention.
Although less prevalent, compromising was reported to be employed by participants for relatively minor conflicts, balancing between preserving relationships and achieving practical solutions. However, participants noted that this could lead to suboptimal outcomes, especially for deeply rooted issues like succession disputes.
General Discussion
This study contributes to the literature by contextualizing conflict management within the familial, cultural, and generational dynamics of Indian family businesses. It highlights the interplay between conflict’s destructive and constructive outcomes, offering a theoretical understanding of how family businesses navigate tensions while maintaining both relational and organizational goals. Further, the findings of this study provide the basis for some practical recommendations to managers in family businesses facing conflict situations. Our recommendations emphasize proactive, structured approaches to conflict management. By implementing these strategies, family businesses can enhance relational harmony and operational efficiency, ensuring their sustainability and growth in the competitive Indian market. Moreover, these strategies can support the growth of the Indian contribution to the global economy.
The findings of this study, particularly the preference for internal mediators, the use of avoidance strategies within hierarchical family structures, and the generally positive view of conflict, can be interpreted as aligning with Indian collectivist culture as articulated in Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2011). In collectivist societies such as India, family harmony and social cohesion are paramount, often leading to indirect conflict management strategies like avoidance or the use of respected internal mediators rather than external authorities (Chadda & Deb, 2013). These practices reflect a culturally embedded preference for maintaining relational equilibrium and deference to family hierarchy, consistent with vertical collectivism (Chadda & Deb, 2013; Jha & Singh, 2011). Moreover, the positive framing of conflict as an opportunity for growth and adaptation within the family aligns with the Indian family system's capacity for resilience and integration, even in changing urban contexts (Chakravorty et al., 2021). These culturally informed conflict responses underscore the importance of interpreting familial dynamics within their broader sociocultural context, reaffirming that Indian families often negotiate tensions not through confrontation, but through relational strategies rooted in collectivist values.
Theoretical Implications
This study advances the theoretical understanding of conflict in Indian family businesses through five distinct contributions that extend and refine existing frameworks.
First, this research advances conflict theory by demonstrating how generational dynamics in family firms shape task-related conflict through the lens of technology adoption and employee management. While prior studies have acknowledged generational differences as sources of tension (Eddleston et al., 2013; Lansberg et al., 1997), our findings go further by showing how these generational divides translate into specific operational disagreements, particularly regarding resistance to technology among older members versus innovation advocacy by younger generations (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2007; Lambrecht, 2005). This provides a more granular understanding of how intergenerational conflict manifests in strategic and operational domains. While generational tensions over innovation and resistance to change exist in both family and non-family firms, the intergenerational relationships in family firms (e.g., parent-child dynamics) add a layer of personal history and emotional complexity.
Second, this study contributes a theoretical reframing of conflict as a productive force within family business contexts. While much of the literature emphasizes the dysfunctional consequences of conflict, such as reduced trust, emotional strain, and inefficiency (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2006; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006), our findings highlight its constructive potential. We believe that this finding is notable, even though the study is qualitative and not based on a representative sample. While we cannot make generalizable claims, the prevalence of positive reflections may suggest that, for many Indian family business leaders, conflict is not solely seen as a threat, but also as a potential catalyst for growth, innovation, and learning. Echoing but extending prior suggestions (Kellermanns et al., 2008; Zellweger et al., 2012), we show that well-managed conflict can catalyze innovation, strategic alignment, and organizational learning. This reconceptualization challenges the prevailing negative bias and underscores conflict’s dual nature in family firms. The concept of conflict as a catalyst for innovation applies across organizations. However, the duality of conflict (destructive vs. constructive) is particularly salient in family firms due to their long-term orientation and overlapping roles.
Third, the study contributes to the theory of conflict origins by uncovering how deep-seated familial histories, such as sibling rivalries and unresolved interpersonal grievances, shape present-day business conflicts. While prior research has predominantly focused on structural or task-based sources of conflict (Chrisman et al., 2004; Sharma, 2004), we show that emotional and relational legacies often resurface in business disputes, influencing both relationship-oriented and task-oriented conflicts (Bird et al., 2002; Dyer Jr., 2003). This introduces an important emotional and historical dimension to conflict antecedents in family business theory. Unresolved childhood grievances, sibling rivalries, and emotional baggage stemming from family history are distinctive to family businesses. These forms of emotional and relational conflict antecedents are not generally present or relevant in non-family firms.
Fourth, this research deepens conflict resolution theory by unpacking how cultural norms and relational embeddedness influence mediator selection in Indian family firms. While earlier studies have highlighted the general utility of professional mediation (Poza & Daugherty, 2010; Zellweger & Sieger, 2012), our findings show that Indian family businesses strategically differentiate between internal and external mediators based on conflict intensity and relational proximity. This offers a more context-sensitive view of mediation practices, extending Lambrecht’s (2005) call for tailored conflict management approaches and highlighting the role of cultural expectations in shaping resolution strategies. While cultural norms influence all organizations, the interaction between cultural values and familial embeddedness (e.g., choosing mediators based on kinship ties or social proximity) is distinct to family firms.
Fifth, the study extends Rahim’s conflict management framework by illustrating how his five conflict styles operate under cultural and familial constraints in Indian business contexts. Although Rahim’s model (2000, 2002, 2023) is widely cited, little empirical work has examined how these styles are selectively enacted in hierarchical, collectivist family structures. Our data show that while collaboration is aspired to for long-term harmony, avoidance is commonly used to maintain respect for senior family members. This reveals how cultural values moderate the application of universal conflict styles, thus adding a layer of conditionality to existing theory (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Caputo et al., 2018). Rahim’s five conflict styles are used across organizational types and are not specific to family businesses. In that sense, this contribution is conceivably more general and equally applicable to the non-family context.
Practical Implications
The study’s findings have practical significance for family business owners, managers, and advisors. First, the emphasis on clear communication and defined roles is a call to action for family businesses to establish formal governance structures. These structures can delineate responsibilities, reduce ambiguity, and prevent conflicts stemming from overlapping roles or undefined succession plans. Family councils and advisory boards may serve as valuable platforms to discuss sensitive issues like succession planning and generational transitions. Clear delineation of responsibilities ensures that accountability is maintained, and misunderstandings are minimized (Chrisman et al., 2004; Lansberg et al., 1997). Clear roles and governance are vital in all organizations. However, in family businesses, the absence of formal structure is more common due to informal decision-making, blurred boundaries between family and business roles, and unspoken assumptions. Thus, the recommendation applies broadly but has heightened importance and a different texture in family firms.
Second, the findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive succession planning. Unclear succession paths were identified as a major source of conflict. Businesses should develop transparent, inclusive plans that address the expectations of multiple stakeholders, including younger generations eager for leadership roles and older members reluctant to relinquish control. By incorporating multigenerational input, businesses can foster alignment and mitigate conflicts during transitions (Koiranen, 2002; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). While succession planning is a universal business concern, in family firms it tends to be deeply personal and emotionally charged, often involving power dynamics, legacy, and identity across generations.
Third, the preference for collaborative strategies highlights the importance of conflict resolution training tailored to the familial context. Managers and family members should be equipped with skills in active listening, emotional intelligence, and constructive negotiation to facilitate open and empathetic communication. Such training, especially for newer generations, can reduce the emotional intensity of conflicts and promote a culture of mutual respect and understanding (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2007; Zellweger et al., 2012). Training in emotional intelligence and communication is valuable in all businesses. However, tailoring such training to familial dynamics (e.g., long-standing emotional bonds, hierarchies based on age or tradition) is especially necessary in family firms.
Fourth, fostering a culture that views conflict as an opportunity rather than a threat can unlock its potential for innovation. Managers should encourage structured discussions where disagreements are framed as learning opportunities, leading to creative solutions and strategic improvements. For instance, incorporating regular feedback sessions or innovation workshops can channel the energy of disagreements into productive outcomes (Eddleston et al., 2013; Kellermanns et al., 2008). Reframing conflict as an opportunity for learning and innovation is a best practice across all business types, not just family firms. The implementation might differ slightly depending on context, but the core recommendation is not unique to family businesses.
Fifth, leveraging external mediation for entrenched disputes can provide objectivity and facilitate resolution. While some participants emphasized internal mediation to maintain discretion, others highlighted the need for trained professionals to address deeply rooted conflicts. Family businesses should establish a roster of trusted mediators, including both internal and external options, to handle conflicts appropriately based on their nature and severity (Poza & Daugherty, 2010; Zellweger & Sieger, 2012). External mediation is useful in any business facing entrenched conflicts. However, in family businesses, relational embeddedness, discretion, and face-saving concerns make the choice between internal vs. external mediators more nuanced. The dual option (internal for minor, external for deep-rooted issues) reflects family-specific sensitivities.
Limitations and Future Research
This study is subject to certain limitations that provide a foundation for future research. First, the sample size of 22 participants, though adequate for qualitative exploration, constrains the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should aim to incorporate larger, more diverse samples that encompass family businesses across varying industries and regions within India. A broader dataset could illuminate patterns and distinctions that were not captured in the current study, offering a richer understanding of conflict dynamics.
Second, this study relies on self-reported data, which carries the risk of response bias. Participants may have inadvertently exaggerated or downplayed certain aspects of their experiences due to personal perceptions, memory limitations, or social desirability. Employing a mixed-methods approach in future research, incorporating observational studies, surveys, and archival data, could mitigate these limitations and provide a more objective account of conflict management practices.
Third, the focus on senior managers, while valuable, limits the perspective to a single stakeholder group. Future research should strive to include diverse voices, such as junior family members, non-family employees, and external advisors. Exploring these perspectives would provide a more holistic view of how conflict is experienced and managed across different layers of the organization. Additionally, investigating intergenerational and cross-cultural dynamics within these diverse groups could yield new insights into the mechanisms of conflict.
Fourth, the cross-sectional design of this study restricts the ability to track the evolution of conflicts and their management over time. Longitudinal research could address this limitation by following family businesses through various phases of growth, succession, and external challenges. Such an approach would enable researchers to identify temporal shifts in conflict drivers, management strategies, and outcomes, offering a dynamic understanding of family business resilience.
Fifth, cultural specificity is both a strength and a limitation of this research. While the study provides deep insights into Indian family businesses, the findings may not be fully transferable to other cultural contexts. Comparative studies across regions and countries would allow researchers to examine the influence of cultural norms and societal values on conflict dynamics, enhancing the universality of theoretical frameworks such as Rahim’s conflict management styles. Future research could, for instance, investigate the various business communities from different regions in India. Some well-known communities like the Marwaris, Nattukottai Chettiars, Jains, Reddys, Sindhis, and Nadars represent various regions.
Another course of research that could add value would be the potential effect of gender on the style of conflict management and the choice of conflict resolution in Indian family businesses. Historically, in India, there has been a narrative on the presence of gender-based bias. However, with more women taking up leadership positions in family businesses, it would be valuable to understand if gender plays a role in the style of conflict management in India and how non-family colleagues and employees perceive conflict management by women in leadership positions compared to their male counterparts.
Many family businesses in India are seeing the younger generation come in with influences from Western education, work experience and values, which we briefly touch upon in this study. A deeper exploration into the generational shifts and their influence on conflict resolution strategies would be insightful. This would not only encompass the evolution of conflict management and business strategies but also the socio-cultural shifts taking place within Indian society.
Future research could also build on this study by including family businesses that report low levels of conflict or none at all, in order to explore the conditions and practices that promote conflict resilience. Comparing such cases with high-conflict businesses could help identify protective factors, such as governance structures, communication practices, or leadership styles, that reduce the likelihood or intensity of conflict. A comparative design could also shed light on how conflict is perceived and managed differently across varying levels of conflict exposure, offering a more nuanced understanding of why some family businesses experience persistent tensions while others remain relatively harmonious.
Conclusion
This study explores the dynamics of conflict within Indian family businesses, illustrating both challenges and opportunities. By applying Rahim’s theory of organizational conflict management to the unique cultural and generational context of Indian enterprises, the research highlights the nuanced interplay between conflict styles, familial roles, and business outcomes. The findings underline the importance of structured governance, clear communication, and proactive succession planning as tools to mitigate conflict while fostering innovation and alignment. Moreover, the study underscores conflict’s dual potential as a source of both disruption and growth, contingent upon how it is managed.
For practitioners, the recommendations based on the findings of our study emphasize adopting a proactive, inclusive, and context-sensitive approach to conflict resolution, leveraging both internal and external mediation processes as needed. By navigating the complexities of family-business conflicts with strategic foresight, Indian family enterprises can sustain their legacy while thriving in a dynamic economic landscape.
Author Note
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors have no financial support to be reported and would like to thank all participants of the interview study.
References
Alderson, K. (2015). Conflict management and resolution in family-owned businesses: A practitioner-focused review. Journal of Family Business Management, 5(2), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-08-2015-0030
Alvarado, A. A. (2020). Perdurability, families, and internationalization processes: Approaches from business history in Latin America. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business, 5(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1344/jesb2020.2.j075
Alvarado-Alvarez, C., Armadans, I., & Parada, M. J. (2020). Tracing the roots of constructive conflict management in family firms. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12164
Alvarado-Alvarez, C., Armadans, I., Parada, M. J., & Anguera, M. T. (2021). Unraveling the role of shared vision and trust in constructive conflict management of family firms: An empirical study from a mixed methods approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 629730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629730
Alvarado, C., & Martin, E. (2024). Conflict. In Elgar encyclopedia of family business (pp. 55–60). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Astrachan, J. H., & McMillan, K. S. (2003). Conflict and communication in the family business. Family Enterprise Publisher.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bennedsen, M., Fan, J. P., Jian, M., & Yeh, Y.-H. (2015). The family business map: Framework, selective survey, and evidence from Chinese family firm succession. Journal of Corporate Finance, 33, 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.01.008
Bird, B., Welsch, H., Astrachan, J. H., & Pistrui, D. (2002). Family business research: The evolution of an academic field. Family Business Review, 15(4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00337.x
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021b). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Brett, J. M. (1984). Managing organizational conflict. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(5), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.15.5.664
Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Pellegrini, M. M., & Rialti, R. (2018). Conflict management in family businesses: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(4), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-02-2018-0027
Chadda, R. K., & Deb, K. S. (2013). Indian family systems, collectivistic society and psychotherapy. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(Suppl 2), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.105555
Chakravorty, S., Goli, S., & James, K. S. (2021). Family demography in India: Emerging patterns and its challenges. Sage Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211008178
Chen, J., Wang, C., Wang, Q., & Luo, B. (2019). Sibling rivalry vs. brothers in arms: The contingency effects of involvement of multiple offsprings on risk taking in family firms. Sustainability, 11(16), 4447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164447
Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00049.x
Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (2003). Succession and nonsuccession concerns of family firms and agency relationship with nonfamily managers. Family Business Review, 16(2), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2003.00089.x
Cohen, A. R. (2018). Tradition, change and conflict in Indian family business (Vol. 13). Walter de Gruyter.
Davis, P. S., & Harveston, P. D. (2001). The phenomenon of substantive conflict in the family firm: A cross‐generational study. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0447-2778.00003
Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9177-2
Deloitte. (2013). From the family to the firm: A view through the Indian prism. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Private Limited.
Dyer, W. G., Jr. (2003). The family: The missing variable in organizational research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-8520.t01-1-00016
Eddleston, K. A., Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2013). Planning for growth: Life stage differences in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1177–1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12002
Goyal, A., & Mukherjee, C. (2024). Five differentiators of outperforming family-owned businesses in India. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-asia/five-differentiators-of-outperforming-family-owned-businesses-in-india
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Habbershon, T. G., & Williams, M. L. (1999). A resource-based framework for assessing the strategic advantages of family firms. Family Business Review, 12(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1999.00001.x
Hillman, D. R. (2014). Understanding multigenerational work-value conflict resolution. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 29(3), 240–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2014.933961
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Jacob, S. (2022, March 1). The $8.5 billion TVS Group splits to grow: What’s changed structure-wise? Rediff Business. https://www.rediff.com/money/report/auto-the-85-billion-tvs-group-splits-to-grow-whats-changed-structure-wise/20220301.htm
Jaskiewicz, P., & Dyer, W. G. (2017). Addressing the elephant in the room: Disentangling family heterogeneity to advance family business research. Family Business Review, 30(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486517700469
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict–outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
Jha, S. D., & Singh, K. (2011). An analysis of individualism–collectivism across northern India. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 149–156.
Joshi, M., Dixit, S., Sinha, A. K., & Shukla, B. (2018). Conflicts in a family business: A case of Durga and Company. Vision, 22(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2811536
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi‐structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2006). Corporate entrepreneurship in family firms: A family perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00153.x
Kellermanns, F. W., & Eddleston, K. A. (2007). A family perspective on when conflict benefits family firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1048–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.018
Kellermanns, F. W., Eddleston, K. A., Sarathy, R., & Murphy, F. (2012). Innovativeness in family firms: A family influence perspective. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9268-5
Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Pearson, A. W., & Spencer, B. (2008). The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.464
Khana, S. (2022, February 19). Back story: How a fratricidal fight shaped Rahul Bajaj’s resolve for a family settlement. CNBC TV18. https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/companies/back-story-how-a-fratricidal-fight-shaped-rahul-bajajs-resolve-for-a-family-settlement-12475402.htm
Koiranen, M. (2002). Over 100 years of age but still entrepreneurially active in business: Exploring the values and family characteristics of old Finnish family firms. Family Business Review, 15(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2002.00175.x
Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new explanatory model. Family Business Review, 18(4), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2005.00048.x
Lansberg, I., Gersick, K., Davis, J., & McCollom, M. (1997). Generation to generation. Harvard Business Press.
Madiwala, M. (2024). Murugappa Group family dispute highlights enduring challenges in Indian business families. The Secretariat. https://thesecretariat.in/article/murugappa-group-family-dispute-highlights-enduring-challenges-in-indian-business-families
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage from great family businesses. Harvard Business Press.
Miller, D., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, and capabilities. Family Business Review, 19(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00063.x
Miller, D., Steier, L., & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2003). Lost in time: Intergenerational succession, change, and failure in family business. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00058-2
Moreno-Gené, J., & Gallizo, J. L. (2021). Intergenerational differences in family business management and their influence on business profitability. Sustainability, 13(12), 6979. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126979
Mukherjee, A. (2022, July 13). How Mukesh Ambani will split his empire to avoid his father’s folly. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/how-mukesh-ambani-will-split-his-empire-to-avoid-his-fathers-folly/articleshow/92558888.cms
Olson, P. D., Zuiker, V. S., Danes, S. M., Stafford, K., Heck, R. K., & Duncan, K. A. (2003). The impact of the family and the business on family business sustainability. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 639–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00014-4
Poza, E. J., & Daugherty, M. S. (2010). Family business. South-Western Cengage Learning.
Rahim, M. A. (2000). Empirical studies on managing conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022832
Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022874
Rahim, M. A. (2023). Managing conflict in organizations. Transaction Publishers.
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business studies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Business Review, 17(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2004.00001.x
Zellweger, T., & Sieger, P. (2012). Entrepreneurial orientation in long-lived family firms. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-010-9267-6
Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.066
Appendix
Appendix A: Interview schedule
Introduction
1. What is your name and age?
2. What is your job and where do you work?
3. Which industry is your business operating in?
Conflict
4. What is your general view on conflict?
5. What is your typical response to conflict?
6. Do you see conflict as destructive or constructive? Please explain.
7. Has conflict ever affected your decision-making? Please explain.
Family relationships
8. Who are the other family members working with you?
9. What is their position?
10. What is your work relationship with them? Please explain.
11. Are there any shared responsibilities between you and them? Please explain.
Conflict in the family business
12. How has conflict impacted decision-making within your business? Please explain.
13. How would you describe the work conflicts you face with your family members?
14. What typically happens when there is a conflict within your business?
15. Have differences with family members unrelated to work ever led to conflict at work?
Conflict management
16. What does resolving a conflict with your family members look like to you?
17. What is your view on professional mediation as a way to resolve conflict?
18. If you could implement an overall strategy to resolve conflict withing your business,
what would that strategy look like?