A clear majority of family office principals are refusing to surrender their cherished executive pay structures where they decide bonuses on an annual basis.
Subscribe
You will need a Premium+ Subscription to read this article.
Exclusive news, analysis and research on global family enterprise and private investment offices
Already have an account? Sign in
Already have an account? Sign in
You've reached the end.
Continue reading free articles by registering as a Member.
Or choose a Premium Plan.
Already have an account? Sign in
One response to “Family office principals dislike being boxed in when it comes to paying their staff”
Few understand that remuneration is not an annual gesture of appreciation.
It is a governance instrument. It signals how seriously a family office defines roles, measures contribution, and aligns responsibility with authority.
Family offices often reward loyalty while seeking expertise. The tension is subtle yet real. Loyalty belongs to the relational sphere. Expertise belongs to the professional sphere. Confusing the two creates ambiguity. Clarity, not improvisation, is what allows both to coexist with dignity.
A family office cannot be managed as an extension of the operating business, nor as a private household with corporate labels. What feels like discretion to owners can feel like arbitrariness to seasoned professionals. Structures that are implicit within the family must become explicit for those who serve it.
Talent rarely leaves because of numbers alone. It leaves because of uncertainty. It leaves when expectations shift without explanation, when mandates lack definition, and when compensation reflects mood rather than mandate.
In this sense, pay is never merely financial. It is architectural. It reveals whether the family office is guided by governance or by instinct.