See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371013054

Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with dilemmas in business families

using systemic tools from family coaching

Article in Systems Research and Behavioral Science · May 2023

DOI: 10.1002/sres.2962

CITATIONS READS

0 46

3 authors:

Theresa Arnold Heiko Kleve

Witten Institute for Family Business Witten Institute for Family Business
2 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 378 PUBLICATIONS 850 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steffen Roth
La Rochelle Business School
122 PUBLICATIONS 1,524 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Next systems theory View project

"Nachwuchswissenschaftler/innen gesucht" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steffen Roth on 25 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 31 August 2022 Revised: 21 April 2023 Accepted: 24 April 2023
DOI: 10.1002/sres.2962

RESEARCH PAPER

Within a mesh of expectations: Dealing with dilemmas in

business families using systemic tools from family coaching

Theresa Arnold 1 | Heiko Kleve 1 | Steffen Roth 2,3

1
Witten Institute for Family Business,
University of Witten-Herdecke, Witten, Abstract
Germany Business family members face challenges related to exposure to diverse role
2
Department of Strategy, Excelia Business expectations and systems logics, the management of which often results in sit-
School La Rochelle, La Rochelle, France
3
uations of high complexity, dilemmas, and paradoxes. To address these issues,
Next Society Institute, Kazimieras
Simonavičius University, Vilnius,
in this paper we combine key insights from social systems theory with systemic
Lithuania family coaching tools such as “internal maps,” the “expectation carrousel,”
and the “tetralemma.” In drawing on an illustrative example from a family
Correspondence
Theresa Arnold, Witten Institute for business succession planning context, we demonstrate how systemic
Family Business, University of Witten- approaches may help business family members to (a) creatively reflect on both
Herdecke, Witten, Germany.
the personal and interpersonal expectations they are confronted with and
Email: theresa.arnold@uni-wh.de
(b) manage issues of decision-making in dilemmatic or paradoxical situations.

KEYWORDS
business families, dilemmas, family business, social systems theory, systemic coaching

1 | INTRODUCTION family (Koellner, 2023). In stretching or even superseding

Major social challenges and rapid technological change
are often assessed and addressed differently across differ-
ent generations of family firms. The resulting interge-
nerational pluralism and heterogeneity (Jaskiewicz
et al., 2017; Zellweger et al., 2012) may cause friction
within the family system, which cannot be solved by
standard business management approaches as family
firms are not merely business organizations but are also
defined by a complex network of family relationships and
ownership structures, and thus by the mutual interac-
tions of a business, family, and the legal system (Combs
et al., 2020; Pieper & Klein, 2007; Sharma, 2004). As fam-
ily businesses are passed down through the generations,
these intersystemic interactions become increasingly
complex (Kleve, Köllner, et al., 2020; Rüsen et al., 2021;
Zellweger et al., 2012). Added to this complexity are addi-
tional changes in (self-)concepts of what it means to be a
traditional forms, families have become much more
diverse today and can include for instance blended fami-
lies or same-sex marriages. Likewise, a general social drift
towards diversity, flexibility, and individualism has had a
huge impact on families and thus on the entire family
business context, too (Aldrich et al., 2021; Baù
et al., 2020; Kammerlander, 2021). It thus seems that
today more than ever, business families are at the cross-
roads of complex social systems, each coming with differ-
ent norms and expectations (Koellner, 2023; Frank
et al., 2017). Within this complex environment, it has
become increasingly important for business family mem-
bers to deal with different interests, expectations, and
logics in a both strategic and constructive way (Aldrich
et al., 2021; Kushins & Behounek, 2020). Managing the
balancing act between family, business, and ownership
goals and addressing the resulting paradoxes and ten-
sions are veritable challenges that systemic management

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Systems Research and Behavioral Science published by International Federation for Systems Research and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Syst Res Behav Sci. 2023;1–10. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sres 1


2 ARNOLD ET AL.
and consulting tools may help with (Kleve, Roth,
et al., 2020; Rüsen et al., 2022; Von Schlippe &
Jansen, 2020). In this conceptual paper, we draw on and
combine the rich bodies of social systems-theoretical lit-
erature and systemic management, consulting, and ther-
apy tools and techniques in a bid to explore and illustrate
how systemic tools facilitate the management of com-
plexities and paradoxes emerging both within and at the
interfaces of three systemic dimensions: family, business,
and ownership.
To this end, our article first outlines a systems-
theoretical approach to family, business, and ownership
as autonomous, yet interrelated systems. In the second
part, we introduce the following three systemic tech-
niques to solve problems caused within and by the inter-
actions between these systems: (a) The “internal maps,”
(b) the “expectation carrousel” (Von Schlippe &
Jansen, 2020), and (c) the “tetralemma.” We then apply
these tools to paradoxes and tensions arising within the
family business context, thus also bridging the gap
between systems theory and systemic practice. Finally,
we conclude by giving an outlook and offering some
promising avenues for future research.
2 | C OM P LEX CO M M UN I C A T I ON
A N D DI L E M M A S IN BU S I N ES S
FAMILIES
Families and businesses are different types of social sys-
tems (Kleve, Köllner, et al., 2020; Luhmann, 2005;
Randerson et al., 2021) whose interactions often are of a
paradoxical and dilemmatic nature (Claßen &
Schulte, 2017; Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020). As a prime locus
of these interactions, business families are particularly
prone to experiences of paradoxes, dilemmas, and other
family–business tensions which result from a clash of
two different forms of logics: the logic of belonging and
emotional attachment (family), and the logic of economic
profit (business). This clash of systems often confuses
members of business families, and the issues are further
complicated by the fact that not every member of a busi-
ness family is a legal owner of “their” family business
(law). The observational conflation of these three
systems—family, economy, and law—often seems to
blend strong emotions into two different domains of
unemotional rationality: Economy and law. Integrating
within a business family the expectations and logics of
each of these three systems naturally comes as a major
challenge (Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020; Luhmann, 2012,
2018) as decision-making within and beyond these
domains oscillates between the logics of family, economy,
and law. A result of this perceived oscillation is the
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
creation of “double-bind messages” (when two or more
different logics seem to resonate within one statement) or
supposedly unsolvable dilemmas (Kleve, Köllner,
et al., 2020; Litz, 2012).
In this context of ambiguity and tension, systems
thinking provides both researchers and practitioners with
a shared language for managing the complexity and para-
doxes resulting from this intersystemic interference
(Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020; Yezza et al., 2021).
3 | A SOCIAL SYSTEMS
METHODOLOGY: BENEFITS OF
SYSTEMIC INSTRUMENTS IN A
PA RA DOXICA L EN VIRO NM ENT
To facilitate a requisite shift from problems to solutions
in situations of paradox and tension, and thus to manage
the above complexity, this article outlines a systems-
theoretical method (Roth, Mills, et al., 2021; Von
Bertalanffy, 1972) to guide family members through com-
plex situations (Ackoff et al., 1978; De Shazer &
Dolan, 2007; Sparrer, 2007). To untangle diverse and
divergent role expectations and system logics in family,
business, and ownership, we present a solution-focused
approach to prominent business family issues identified
in family business research (Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020).
In family therapy or coaching, systemic approaches
are applied when family communication has been com-
plicated by problems of unperceived double binds or per-
ceived misbehaviours or dilemmas (Von Schlippe, 2022).
In this context, the focus is shifted from the family as the
rigid problem-oriented system towards the social con-
struction and interrelatedness of descriptions and mean-
ings (De Shazer & Dolan, 2007). Systemic family therapy
seeks to first identify semantics that describe the per-
ceived problematic situation or behaviour. How can we
describe this behaviour? What kind of associations are
linked to it? As a first step, it is indeed important to visu-
alize and illustrate these perceptions (Von Schlippe
et al., 1998). Consider the example of a family business
succession planning process where, for instance, a daugh-
ter taking over the executive responsibilities of her father
must consider not only the impact of this transition on
her family but also the impact of this changed family
structure on the business organizational and ownership
structure. The succession planning process thus implies
both considerations of expectations from various environ-
ments and a great deal of internal self-awareness and
self-control on the part of the daughter (Akhmedova
et al., 2020; Filser et al., 2013; Yezza et al., 2021). To find
inner guidance and self-control, it is essential for her to
reflect on her expectations, purpose, and role.
 10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARNOLD ET AL. 3

Considering the decision to take over the business from
her father, the daughter needs to engage in a reflection
process from the initial idea to the final decision. This
process often triggers the awareness of the need for active
expectation management, both internal and external, and
a sharpened sense of the challenges accompanying
decision-making in paradoxical and dilemmatic
situations.
Based on these general considerations, in the subse-
quent sections of this chapter, we present three systemic
techniques that are particularly useful for the navigation
of complex and paradoxical situations in systemic family
therapy and coaching (Kleve, 2022; Von Schlippe &
Jansen, 2020).
3.1 | Succession in family business—An
exemplification
As outlined before, this paper aims to raise awareness of
systemic instruments and their utility for understanding
and managing business family and family business
research and practice problems. To this end, we intro-
duce three systemic instruments referred to as
(a) “internal maps,” (b) the “expectation carrousel” (Von
Schlippe & Jansen, 2020), and (c) the “tetralemma.” For
illustrative purposes, in the following paragraphs, we
shall draw on experiences from coaching sessions with
business family members confronted with a succession
decision and the corresponding expectations. Succession
can be considered one of the most critical situations for
family businesses not only in their business but also in
their family dimension, where this transition is
accompanied by great personal involvement and uncer-
tainty. The result of this transition is often new rules,
structures, and forms of conduct both within the business
and the family. Therefore, virtually everything needs to
be (re)negotiated.
In the case examined here, we describe the situation
of a daughter as the potential successor to her father. If
she decided to run the business operatively, she would
represent the fourth generation in charge. Against this
backdrop, both father and daughter had agreed to have a
transition phase that provided the opportunity to see how
things go initially and to make up their minds accord-
ingly. Other people involved in the succession process are
a nonfamily CEO, staff members, clients, and nonmana-
ging family members such as the daughter's mother, sis-
ter, uncle, and spouse. In Table 1, we have detailed
verbatim the expectations of the daughter as expressed by
each of these shareholders and stakeholders.
In providing this example of the expectations a suc-
cessor is confronted with during a succession planning
process, we illustrate how a potential successor is con-
fronted not only with different role expectations from
individual people but also with divergent systems logics
(family, business, ownership) that guide the different
shareholders and stakeholders' decision-making. Thus, a
succession planning process concerns diverse expecta-
tions of an environment and requires a considerable
amount of internal self-control. To find internal guide-
lines, it is essential to reflect upon one's own expecta-
tions. Considering the decision to follow her father as
successor in the family business, the daughter needs to
engage in a reflection process from the initial idea to the
final decision.

TABLE 1 Expectations regarding a successor as expressed by family business shareholders and stakeholders.

Person/role Narrative
Successor “Let us get started – I shall change everything.”
“I must preserve our family (business) traditions.”
Father “Be like me but do not become more successful than me.”
CEO “Welcome! But please do not implement something you recently learned at university. For, I am the one in
charge here for a long time and I know this business.”
Employees “Hopefully, she will not change much and maintain our positions and routines.”
Mother “Seize the opportunity! Do not be too pushy during the transition phase to save your father's face.”
Spouse “In the end, you can be the one in charge and make the decisions. However, do keep up the work-life balance
for the sake of our family.”
Family members (e.g., “Please, keep me updated about any decisions concerning the family business so that I can (re)act if
siblings) necessary. Still, do not bother me with every little detail.”
“I shall always be the backup plan, the spare.”
“Perhaps I should suggest a dual leadership model for our family business so that I can secure an important
role for myself.”

4 ARNOLD ET AL.
3.2 | Personal reflection: The internal
maps
Succession, the transition from one generation to
another, is often considered the most critical situation
for family businesses. If it succeeds, it offers an opportu-
nity for both continuity and innovation. If it fails, the
business may be ruined. Yet, the expectations that family
members are confronted with in succession planning are
not only high but also aligned with very different sys-
temic logics.
In this context, the systemic instrument referred to as
“internal maps” is highly instrumental for the reflection
of the high scale and broad scope of challenges associated
with a succession process. Taking the above example of
the daughter, an internal mapping process would start
with a set of critical questions: What is her starting posi-
tion? What is the status quo like? How would she
describe her mental state? What resources are required
for the new position and role? What potential risks may
occur along the way? And again, where does she start
from and where would she like to arrive?
Applying internal maps for family coaching provides
a systemic instrument that addresses not only personal
resources within the change process but also a map of
the things to explore along the way as well as of the
obstacles that might appear or need to be overcome. If
Arist Von Schlippe et al. (1998) state that therapy deals
with the internal map of people, then one goal of every
coaching and therapy process may be to enrich these
maps. The actual process of internal mapping resembles
the contemplation of a landscape, though in a somewhat
strategic way, as the aim is to obtain an overview that
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
allows for individual aspects to be viewed and contextual-
ized from a wider perspective. This process not only pro-
vides orientation but also abstracts from a typically
dominant problem focus. As a result, the perceived scope
of mental options and behavioural margins widens con-
siderably. In some cases, internal maps also function as
“inventories” of personal resources indicating what is in
stock or in need of restocking, respectively (Figure 1).
To explore the internal maps, there is a tried and
tested set of reflective questions commonly applied in sys-
temic coaching (Table 2).
Internal mapping processes facilitate the reflection on
change and transitions. The detection and appreciation of
differences provide a key to a better understanding and
integration of the individual parts of the map. Somewhat
similar to a SWOT matrix, the internal map also encour-
ages observations on the entire map through different
landscapes and new territories (Humphrey, 2005;
Roth, 2022).
Using this tool helps to create new routes and new
horizons linking existing territories to unknown yet
imaginable areas. Thus, the tool focuses our attention on
options and alternatives that we have not yet considered.
In the context of a succession process, this tool can be
particularly instrumental for business family coaching as
it combines an internal resource focus with an external
opportunity and risk management focus. Internal maps
visualize different versions of reality unique to specific
people, contexts, and environments. In a business family
coaching context, they act as a systemic instrument inso-
far as the maps both stimulate individual reflection and,
if shared, increase the mutual awareness of the family
members' situations and aspirations.
FIGURE 1 Visualization of the “internal
maps.”
 10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARNOLD ET AL. 5

TABLE 2 The five steps of the “internal maps.”

1. Localize your 2. Clarify your current 3. Target your 1.4. Specify your 1.5. Approach
position location destinations destinations transition and change
• What is the status • What would you label • What places have you • What new destinations • Where do you see
quo? as “homeland”? not considered so far? can you identify on yourself drifting?
• What is the general • Where do you feel the • What region has been the map? • Where does the change
mood when you most at home? identified as à You can label your want you to move to?
look at your map? à You can claim your “unknown land”? destinations in the • If you could wish for
• Regarding your “homeland” with a • What region still needs region of “a new three comforting
specific situation, specific term yourself. to be desired to be horizon” places, how would you
where would you discovered? • What obstacles could describe them? How
locate yourself? • What destinations you be facing along would you name
• Which of these have you added to the road? them?
regions/countries/ your bucket list along • What can you rely on • If you think of your
continents do you the road? or what do you need strengths and personal
personally know of to nurture to reach resources, where
the least, and which your destination? would you find them?
one would you most
likely want to
discover?

3.3 | The expectation carrousel
The “expectation carrousel” is a systemic tool developed
by Arist von Schlippe and Till Jansen (2020). The tool is
useful for complex collective reflection processes and
thus for business families that are regularly confronted
with diverse sets of expectations and interests. In the
above case of the daughter potentially succeeding her
father, there are indeed many different and not seldom
contradicting expectations at stake. Attempts to respect
and integrate each of the three different systemic
dimensions—family, business, and ownership—often
cause confusion, conflict, and inner strain for the family
members. They can feel torn between these different
expectations and roles. Drawing on the image of the car-
rousel, we can also confirm the above idea that business
family members experience the permanent presence of
these expectations as a constant oscillation that
encircles them.
Against this backdrop, the “carrousel of expectations”
was developed to first visualize and then consciously
reflect on such oscillating expectations and demands.
Moreover, this visualization is instrumental for pinpoint-
ing the individual expectations at stake, but also for map-
ping the contradictions between them and thus also the
conflicts they cause. Once both aspects are clarified, indi-
vidual expectations and demands may be prioritized or
contextualized, and thus complex situations are
simplified.
In applying the carrousel, the business family daugh-
ter would be encouraged to first recollect all expectations
she is confronted with and then label each expectation
with a specific imperative statement (see Figure 2). The
resulting collection of imperatives might initially cause
confusion and a sense of overburdening, and yet it
empowers the daughter to first systematically analyse the
complex network of expectations in which she is embed-
ded, and then, step by step, to identify adequate strategies
to cope with them.
Thus, the procedure recommended for a coaching ses-
sion in a family succession process is the following:
1. The client—here, our business family daughter—is
placed in the centre, where she soon finds herself sur-
rounded by all expectations that she feels she needs to
address.
2. To further substantiate these expectations, she might
wish to write them down on sheets of paper. Each
sheet then represents one expectation and thus acts as
what in systemic consulting is referred to as a “ground
anchor.”
3. On this sheet, the daughter notes, first, the name of
the person or other origin of the respective expecta-
tion. Second, she notes the concrete phrase expressing
this expectation “I expect from you that ….”
4. This procedure is continued to a point of saturation.
5. Once that point is reached, the daughter would reflect
upon these expectations with some guiding questions
in mind such as: “What cognitive, emotional, and
actional perceptions emerge? What changes regarding
personal feelings, thoughts, and action impulses?”
(Kleve, 2022).
6. In the next step, she would then reflect upon the fol-
lowing questions: “Can I accept this expectation?”;

6 ARNOLD ET AL.
“Do I want to reject this expectation?”; “If I reject, do
I want to make an alternative offer?”; and “If so,
under what conditions do I want to make this offer?”
7. After distinguishing and specifically addressing each
expectation, the daughter can revisit the initial situa-
tion and ask herself: “What is different now? What
has changed regarding personal feelings, thoughts,
and action impulses?”
Thus, the expectation carrousel represents a systemic
tool that facilitates the systematic navigation of diverse
sets of high, pressing, and often conflicting expectations
that originate from a broad scope of social systems such
as, in our case, the incommensurable logics of family,
business, and ownership.
3.4 | The tetralemma
Members of business families face unique forms of para-
doxes and ambivalent situations. Growing up with ines-
capable and often competing demands of ultimately
incommensurable systems, they tend to experience their
mental and behavioural margins as limited. In the words
of Erlend Øye: “Freedom is a possibility only if you are
able to say no” (2009). One virtue of the “tetralemma” is
that its application opens mental or communicative doors
precisely by facilitating the option of saying “no.” The
concept of the tetralemma can be traced back to ancient
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
FIGURE 2 Model of the expectation
carrousel.
Indian jurisdiction, where it enabled judges to provide
solutions to dilemmatic conflicts between disputing
parties (Jayatilleke, 1967; Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020;
Roth, 2017, 2019; Sparrer, 2007; Varga von Kibéd, 2006).
While a dilemma is characterized by two mutually
exclusive options, the tetralemma creates a space
of initially two more options that transcend the original
either-or perspective (see Table 3). Thus, the ancient
Indian judge still retained the first two options to rule in
favour of either the one or the other opponent. Yet, in
applying the tetralemma, they could then also neutralize
the initial dilemma by ruling in favour of either both or
neither of the parties. In further expanding the tetra-
lemma, Buddhist logicians included a fifth position,
which they referred to as a nonposition (Berman, 2007;
Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020; Roth, Schneckenberg,
et al., 2021). In fact, this nonposition amounts to an
entirely new position that negates all previous positions
and thus represents the possibility to say “no,” or rather,
“not my problem.”
Thus, the tetralemma can be summarized as depicted
in Table 3:
In the case of a painfully experienced dilemma, the
fifth position extends our scope of imagination to other,
yet-unconsidered possibilities. It hence represents the
option to think outside the box. It transforms a prede-
fined logic or mode of thinking into a new, extended
horizon of options (Kleve, Roth, et al., 2020; Roth, 2017,
2019). In this sense, the tetralemma provides a systemic
 10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARNOLD ET AL. 7

tool for building a fine-grained architecture by
creating guiding distinctions that align with the principle
of the Luhmannian systems theoretical approach
(Luhmann, 1998, 2013; Roth, 2021, 2022).
In the family business context, the extended tetra-
lemma can be applied in better-informed decision-
making and the search for new possibilities. It may help
family members to solve problems resulting from per-
ceived trade-offs between the mutually exclusive
demands or incommensurable logics of family, business,
and ownership. Given the highly emotional nature of the
underlying relations, a tool for releasing the pressure cre-
ated by such dilemmas may indeed act as a game
changer, not only in the context of individual decision-
making but also for situations where multiple family
members are involved. Consequently, the tetralemma is
often and successfully applied in group discussions and
systemic family therapy (Kleve, 2022).
In the case of the business family daughter, the pro-
cess of succession is not only a challenge for the family
business but also for the business family and its individ-
ual members. If we now apply the tetralemma to
this situation, we may assume that she will initially frame
her decision as the choice between either succession or
nonsuccession. If this choice is experienced as dilem-
matic, though, the tetralemma would give her the option
to increase her mental and behavioural margin. Thus,
she might either become the successor and actively run
the family business or remain a passive shareholder.
Another option in the tetralemma would be that she
would become both a part-time successor and a part-time
shareholder. Yet there would still be the option of
being neither a successor nor a shareholder. As she
contemplates these four options, she might ultimately
challenge the entire succession/nonsuccession issue as
“not her problem” (but rather her father's or family's
problem), thus taking the fifth position. Thus, the fifth
position would open up a horizon of new options,
choices, and possibly again dilemmas that she had not
considered so far. The idea of her starting up her own

TABLE 3 The “tetralemma” model.

1. Either 3. Both 5. … neither and none (fifth

What is the one/first option, What opportunity for connection has been overlooked so far? e.g., position)
side, alternative, or compromises, temporal, spatial, factual, personnel contextual Everything unexpected,
possibility? separations, paradoxical links, formal organization unpredictable, humour,
2. Other serenity, wisdom …
What is the other/second
option, side, alternative,
possibilities?
4. Neither
What equally relevant contexts or issues that could also be at stake have been overlooked so far? For
example, topics that occur in the background and that should be dealt with, such as needs,
interests, values, and feelings?

FIGURE 3 Systemic instruments corresponding to the levels of reflection and application purpose.

8 ARNOLD ET AL.
company would only be the most obvious example of
such a “fifth possibility.”
4 | C ONCLUSIONS A ND OUTLOOK
Family members in business families are regularly con-
fronted with expectations stemming from three different
social systems: Family, business, and ownership. This
challenge calls for increased observational flexibility on
the part of both family business researchers and family
members. To understand how and why some family
members act and react in certain ways requires consider-
ation of the inescapable incommensurability and inten-
sive interdependencies of the systems concerned.
To address this challenge, we have demonstrated
(a) how paradoxical and dilemmatic communication
emerges within business families and (b) how systemic
tools such as “internal maps,” the “expectation
carrousel,” and the “tetralemma” may help business fam-
ily members at both a personal and an interpersonal level
to navigate business family and family business para-
doxes and dilemmas (see Figure 3).
One vision behind our systemic approach to family
business and business family issues is to outline a crea-
tive, flexible tool for personal reflection that gives an ini-
tial bigger picture of the current situation (the internal
maps). The creation of an internal landscape, including
the representation of obstacles and destinations, clearly
facilitates the identification of internal resources as well
as the expansion of behavioural margins. This map also
reveals certain values, basic beliefs, and personal attitudes
which may prove to be particularly useful in times of tran-
sition, such as family business succession (planning) pro-
cesses, where uncertainty is increased due to new roles
and expectations (Filser et al., 2013; Yezza et al., 2021).
In such contexts, inner beliefs may appear rather par-
adoxical, as they can easily lead to inner turmoil. Yet, if
supported by “internal maps” complemented with
“expectation carrousels,” the turmoil of these inner
beliefs may be redefined as “mental models”
(Chowdhury, 2023; Lakoff, 1971; Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980) that may act as an inner compass in even
the most complex situations. In referring to the tetra-
lemma, we finally demonstrated how to deal with situa-
tions that require not only an inner compass but also the
ability to think outside the box. As we have shown, the
tetralemma is particularly instrumental for reframing
and overcoming dilemmatic situations (Kleve, Roth,
et al., 2020; Roth, 2022).
This paper is not free from limitations that can be cer-
tainly addressed in future research endeavours. We are
aware of the requirement that participants applying these
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
systemic instruments need to have an open-minded atti-
tude towards creative tools and the necessity to access
complex reflective skills that have the potential to reveal
self-criticism.
Finally, some interesting avenues for future research
emerged in the empirical field. Moving forward, we
engage scholars to contribute to the field of systemic
practice:
1. by applying one of the introduced instruments within
a qualitative study that analyses the differences in
practical application considering heterogeneous sam-
ples of different generations and different sexes
(e.g., difference between female and male successors)
to empirically explore the “Oedipus Paradox,” the role
of generations on leadership styles and lifestyles in
general, and the perception of work environments.
2. by using these instruments in practical workshops
with successors that need to reflect on present
societal topics that imply the tendency for paradoxes
(e.g., tradition vs. digitalization; conventional
leadership style vs. individualized, self-organized
leadership/empowerment; individual goals vs. envi-
ronmental goals; status quo vs. progressive; central-
ized web 2.0 vs. decentralized web 3.0).
In this paper, we aimed to contribute to current
research on creative systems thinking by illustrating how
key insights from social systems theory and systemic
therapy, coaching, and consulting may be instrumental
in managing the dilemmas and paradoxes of family busi-
ness succession processes. In this context, tools that facili-
tate the identification, mapping, and reframing of role
expectations have been shown to be particularly fruitful
for succession processes if consultants succeed in creating
and maintaining an atmosphere of trust and open-
mindedness between clients and themselves that is typi-
cal of most dynamic systems thinking approaches
(Chowdhury, 2020). This ability significantly contributes
to the success of systemic therapy, consulting, or coach-
ing interventions.
ORCID
Theresa Arnold https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-9511
Steffen Roth https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8502-601X
RE FER EN CES
Ackoff, R. L., Green, T. B., Lee, S. M., & Newsom, W. B. (1978).
Beyond problem solving.
Akhmedova, A., Cavallotti, R., Marimon, F., & Campopiano, G.
(2020). Daughters' careers in family business: Motivation types
and family-specific barriers. Journal of Family Business Strategy,
11(3), 100307.

ARNOLD ET AL.
Aldrich, H. E., Brumana, M., Campopiano, G., & Minola, T. (2021).
Embedded but not asleep: Entrepreneurship and family
business research in the 21st century. Journal of Family Busi-
ness Strategy, 12, 100390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.
100390
Baù, M., Pittino, D., Sieger, P., & Eddleston, K. A. (2020). Careers in
family business: New avenues for careers and family business
research in the 21st century. Journal of Family Business Strat-
egy, 11(3), 100379.
Berman, M. P. (2007). Nagarjuna's negative ontology. Journal of
Indian Philosophy and Religion, 12, 115–146. https://doi.org/10.
5840/jipr2007127
Chowdhury, R. (2020). An appreciation of metaphors in manage-
ment consulting from the conceptual lens of holistic flexibility.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 38, 137–157. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sres.2670
Chowdhury, R. (2023). Methodological flexibility in systems think-
ing: Musings from the standpoint of a systems consultant. Sys-
temic Practice and Action Research, 36, 59–86.
Claßen, C. A. E., & Schulte, R. (2017). How do conflicts impact
change in family businesses? The family system and families as
a catalytic converter of change. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 30(7), 1198–1212.
Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K., Burrows, S., Allen, J. S., &
Pounds, T. W. (2020). What do we know about business fami-
lies? Setting the stage for leveraging family science theories.
Family Business Review, 33(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0894486519863508
De Shazer, S., & Dolan, Y. (2007). More than miracles: The state of
the art of solution-focused brief therapy. Routledge.
Filser, M., Kraus, S., & Märk, S. (2013). Psychological aspects of
succession in family business management. Management
Research Review, 36(3), 256–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01409171311306409
Frank, H., Kessler, A., Rusch, T., Suess-Reyes, J., & Weismeier-
Sammer, D. (2017). Capturing the familiness of family busi-
nesses: Development of the family influence familiness scale
(FIFS). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(5), 709–742.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12229
Humphrey, A. (2005). SWOT analysis for management consulting,
SRI Alumni Newsletter, 7–8.
Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Shanine, K. K., & Kacmar, K. M.
(2017). Introducing the family: A review of family science with
implications for management research. Academy of Manage-
ment Annals, 11(1), 309–341. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.
2014.0053
Jayatilleke, K. (1967). The logic of four alternatives. Philosophy East
and West, 17(1/4), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/1397046
Kammerlander, N. (2021). Family business and business family
questions in the 21st century: Who develops SEW, how do fam-
ily members create value, and who belongs to the family. Jour-
nal of Family Business Strategy, 13(2), 100470. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jfbs.2021.100470
Kleve, H. (2022). Empowerment und Selbstreflexion in Unterneh-
merfamilien. Gesellschafterkompetenz durch systemisches
Denken und Handeln. Praxisleitfaden des Wittener Instituts für
Familienunternehmen (WIFU).
Kleve, H., Köllner, T., von Schlippe, A., & Rüsen, T. A. (2020). The
business family 3.0: Dynastic business families as families,
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9
organizations, and networks. Outline of a theory extension. Sys-
tems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(3), 516–526. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sres.2684
Kleve, H., Roth, S., Köllner, T., & Wetzel, R. (2020). The tetralemma
of the business family: A systemic approach to business-family
dilemmas in research and practice. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 33(2), 433–446.
Koellner, T. (Ed.). (2023). Family firms and business families in cross-
cultural perspective: Bringing anthropology back in. Palgrave
MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20525-5
Kushins, E. R., & Behounek, E. (2020). Using sociological theory to
problematize family business research. Journal of Family Busi-
ness Strategy, 11(1), 1–9.
Lakoff, G. (1971). Linguistik und natürliche Logik. Athenäum.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the
human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
Litz, R. (2012). Double role, double binds? Double bind theory and
family business research. In A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.),
Understanding family business: Unique perspectives, neglected
topics, and undiscovered approaches (pp. 115–132). Springer.
Luhmann, N. (1998). Love as passion: The codification of intimacy.
Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2005). Social systems. Stanford University Press.
Luhmann, N. (2012). Theory of society (Vol. 1). Stanford University
Press.
Luhmann, N. (2013). Introduction to systems theory. Polity Press.
Luhmann, N. (2018). Organization and decision. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560672
Øye, E. (2009). Freedom is a possibility only if you are able to say
no, In the lyrics of 1975.
Pieper, T. M., & Klein, S. B. (2007). The bulleye: A systems
approach to modeling family firms. Family Business Review,
20(4), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.
00101.x
Randerson, K., Frank, H., Dibrell, C., & Memili, E. (2021). From
family to families: Pushing family entrepreneurship forward.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 33(5–6), 369–382.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1727091
Roth, S. (2017). Parsons, Luhmann, Spencer Brown. NOR design
for double contingency tables. Kybernetes, 46(8), 1469–1482.
Roth, S. (2019). Digital transformation of social theory. A research
update. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 88–
93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.016
Roth, S. (2021). Draw your organization! A solution-focused theory-
method for business school challenges and change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 34(4), 713–728. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2020-0163
Roth, S. (2022). Digital transformation of management and organi-
zation theories: A research programme. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 40, 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.
2882
Roth, S., Mills, A., Lee, B., & Jemielniak, D. (2021). Theory as
method: Introduction to supertheoretical options for organiza-
tion and management research. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 34(4), 689–698.
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., Valentinov, V., & Kleve, H. (2021).
Approaching management and organization paradoxes para-
doxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive

10
encasement strategy. European Management Journal, 41, 191–
198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.002
Rüsen, T. A., Kleve, H., & Von Schlippe, A. (2021). Managing busi-
ness family dynasties. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82619-2
Rüsen, T. A., von Schlippe, A., & Groth, T. (2022). Family strategy
development in business families—Content and forms of family
governance and family management systems. Practical Guide of
the Witten Institute for Family Business (WIFU).
Sharma, P. (2004). An overview of the field of family business stud-
ies: Current status and directions for the future. Family Busi-
ness Review, 17(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.
2004.00001.x
Sparrer, I. (2007). Miracle, solution, and system: Solution focused sys-
temic structural constellations for therapy and organisational
change. Solutions Books.
Varga von Kibéd, M. V. (2006). Solution-focused transverbality:
How to keep the essence of the solution-focused approach by
extending it. In G. Lueger & H.-P. Korn (Eds.), Solution-focused
management. Rainer Hampp.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general system
theory. In G. J. Klir (Ed.), Trends in general systems theory
(pp. 21–38). John Wiley & Sons.
Von Schlippe, A. (2022). Family businesses in coaching: Specific
dynamics. In International handbook of evidence-based
coaching: Theory, research and practice (pp. 325–336). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
81938-5_27
Von Schlippe, A., Braun-Brönneke, A., & Schröder, K. (1998). Sys-
temische Therapie als engagierter Austausch von Wirklich-
keitsbeschreibungen. System Familie, 11(2), 70–79. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s004910050027
View publication stats
10991743a, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sres.2962, Wiley Online Library on [25/05/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ARNOLD ET AL.
Von Schlippe, A., & Jansen, T. (2020). Das Erwartungskarussell als
Instrument zur Klärung komplexer Situationen im Coaching–
vorgestellt am Beispiel der Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen.
Konfliktdynamik, 9(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-
0147-2020-2-128
Yezza, H., Chabaud, D., & Calabrò, A. (2021). Conflict dynamics
and emotional dissonance during the family business succes-
sion process: Evidence from the Tunisian context. Entrepre-
neurship Research Journal, 11(3), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.
1515/erj-2019-0294
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., & Nordqvist, M. (2012). From lon-
gevity of firms to transgenerational entrepreneurship of fami-
lies: Introducing family entrepreneurial orientation. Family
Business Review, 25(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0894486511423531
How to cite this article: Arnold, T., Kleve, H., &
Roth, S. (2023). Within a mesh of expectations:
Dealing with dilemmas in business families using
systemic tools from family coaching. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sres.2962