How not to raise spoiled brats

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times”, according to G. Michael Hopf.

The statement carries a beautiful symmetry and circularity, and evokes adages like “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”.

It’s that “good times create weak men” bit that gnaws at most every wealth creator and fills them with dread: how do we prevent our kids from becoming “weak” spoiled brats?

At an event recently, I had a penny-drop moment realising there is one simple thing that solves most of those parental worries.

Let’s first consider the challenges that face those born into “good times”:

  • Entitlement. This is the most commonly articulated fear. When kids have won the genetic lottery, and at some point will be legally entitled to far more money than they may ever need, how to stop them feeling entitled?
  • Isolation. Living in a bubble is often the tipping point. Being surrounded by others just like you at private clubs, schools, neighbourhoods, planes and the like. Such a life makes it too easy to lose touch with “the real world”.
  • Education. Teaching kids not just the financial skills they need but also how to be a good stewardship/owner and what good governance and decision-making looks like in practice.
  • Glue. A group of people with shared genetic material and shared assets is not a family. How to maintain a sense of connectedness and a desire to be part of the family?

One solution to these challenges is one thing … philanthropy.

Entitlement is privilege without obligation. Face it: you are privileged and so are your children. But you can balance that with a healthy sense of the obligation that comes with it: to use your wealth to help others.

Exposure to people who are lesser off acts as a hedge against isolation. Both visiting philanthropic project and hands-on volunteering get people out of the bubble and into the real world.

Philanthropy is an outstanding educational tool, especially because it can be very age appropriate. Kids as young as 5 or 6 can practice “spend/save/give” with their allowance. As they get older, they can participate in discussions about giving and about investing for purpose. A foundation – no matter what the size – can be a training ground for learning about investment.

Family philanthropy is ‘glue’ that can create positive shared experiences for family members, teach them to make meaningful decisions together, and help them find alignment on shared purpose.

Important to note:

  • Family philanthropy is not a panacea. I’ve seen “family giving” used as a tool of power that has ripped families apart. It’s ugly.
  • Size doesn’t matter. The principles are what are important. How you give counts more than how much you give.
  • There are other ways to mitigate the risks associated with raising kids with wealth. Philanthropy just happens to be something that ticks most if not all boxes.

Good times don’t have to create weak men.

Strategic family philanthropy can break negative cycles for the better for both family and society.

Conversation Starters:

  • What do you currently do to mitigate the risks associated with raising kids with significant wealth?
  • How has family giving impacted the family? The gift recipient?
  • What is one thing that surprised you about a family philanthropic gift experience?

Further Readings:

The Second Identity Crisis: How To Deal In A Smart Way With A New Phase Of Life
FAMILY FORTUNES
Do “Family Office” Courses At Universities Actually Help Preserve Wealth?
No kids? Here’s how to handle estate planning
Forget the family business. Wealthy heirs want to work for the family office instead
When the ultra rich hire family for their private investment firms, what to pay them can be tricky

The post How not to raise spoiled brats appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/ultra-high-net-worth/how-not-to-raise-spoiled-brats/

Sign the prenup or else …

It’s all over Instagram, which already says a lot: Billionaire attorney John Morgan says any of his children who refuse to sign a prenuptial agreement before marriage will still receive about $1 million a year, but won’t inherit the bulk of his fortune.

Needless to say, a million per year is a lot less than they might otherwise receive.

There are a few things to unpack here.

Let’s set aside the snarky comments about extreme wealth and inequality.

Rather, let’s focus on the merits or otherwise of prenups, and how to communicate and negotiate them within families.

With high divorce rates and significant family wealth, divorce has become a major channel for “horizontal wealth transfer”.

In the interests of keeping the family wealth within the family (usually defined by its blood lines), it is common practice to use a prenup to limit the ‘exit’ of financial capital to someone once they cease to be part of the family.

Often, the biggest risk is in respect of who that person may re-partner with after the divorce. While they may be the parent of a grandchild forever, how about children with a new partner?

It seems reasonable to limit the claims on the family wealth to a fair definition of “family”.

The big question is: what message does this send to married-ins?

Are they second-class citizens? Part of the family?

This issue similarly extends to policies about employment within the family enterprise. Blood is family forever; married-ins for as long as they stay married. If the daughter-in-law has a senior role in the family business, a divorce can be even more complicated than usual.

Like most things in family, there is no right or wrong: only consequences.

Yet sometimes, the choices may be between the lesser of two evils.

Then there is the matter of how this is communicated within the family.

Morgan, by design, wants to play “bad guy” ostensibly to make it easier on his children to demand this from their prospective spouses.

Wow.

Imagine the conversation between the two lovebirds:

“My dad says we have to get a prenup or else …”

So many directions that one can take (and sadly, I’ve seen relationships break up over this). This is excellent fodder for comedians and satirists.

Now imagine how this impacts the relationship (a) between the child and the father, and (b) between the married-in and the father-in-law.

What message does it send about trust – a family currency far more valuable than anything financial?

Talk about getting off on the wrong foot!

Again, no right or wrong. He created the wealth, and it’s his right to set the rules as to where it goes.

The consequences don’t come from the policy itself.

They mostly come from how it’s decided, and how it’s communicated.

Both of those are an essential part of good governance.

A policy dictated from a position of power doesn’t encourage buy-in from those people affected by it.

And there are ways to frame and communicate policies like these so that they don’t lead to resentment, which can actually set them up for failure.

I wish that John Morgan’s children all find loving life partners and enjoy long and successful family relationships together. I also hope Morgan – together with others in his family – finds a better way to set and communicate policy on prenups.

Conversation Starters:

  • What is your family’s policy on prenups?
  • How has family history informed this policy (or lack of)?
  • When and how is this communicated to family members?
  • What have been the consequences of policy (or lack of policy) within your family?

Further Readings:

Parents are hoarding wealth rather than giving inheritances because they fear their children’s spouses could walk off with it in a divorce
Millennials: Creating Your Estate Plan Is a Family Affair
Why female heirs still miss out in succession planning
Love, marriage and prenups: The role of family dynamics in growing families
JOHN MORGAN ON BUILDING A BILLION-DOLLAR LAW FIRM, $600M MARKETING STRATEGY & KIDS SIGNING PRENUPS

The post Sign the prenup or else … appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/succession-planning/sign-the-prenup-or-else/

Family Gerontocracy

Yale Law School professor Samuel Moyn argues that the fate and character of the US is being determined not by forward-looking young people, but those in the final third of their lives.

The “generation war” narrative has been around for as long as there have been generations.

Aristotle said the young “think they know everything, and confidently affirm it”, while older people “live in memory rather than in hope”.

People are living longer and healthier and this has implications both for countries and for wealthy families.

In democracies

  • The numbers win
  • Time cycle is from one election to the next
  • Demographic shifts are significant

Families are not democracies (as I’ve told our kids many times). In families

  • Power and governance are key factors
  • The approach of those in power is significant
  • Time cycles are much longer

In a family, a lot will depend on the governance currently in place.

Family governance rules range from non-existent (‘undocumented’ might be a better term) to being so constrained that they are tantamount to ruling from the grave.

In most cases, there will be long periods of time where the older people in the family are making decisions that significantly impact the younger people, and indeed family members yet to be born.

The well-known quote from the Hermès family is “You do not inherit a family business. You borrow it from your grandchildren”.

That approach turns the family balance sheet on its head, and reflects governance with a strong sense of stewardship and humility, and a time-cycle in decades.

This is where the approach of those in power at any time is most important.

If they embody a Hermès-style attitude, they will make decisions thinking about the needs of future generations. They may invite younger family members to participate in the process, even though they may not have any legal decision-making power.

That achieves two things for the younger family members:

  • Recognition that they are stakeholders
  • Preparing them to be stewards

For years I thought that a member of the Hermès family coined that saying. In fact, back in 1971, the environmental activist Wendell Berry wrote that “a true conservationist knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children”.

In democracies, people largely vote with self-interest in mind. Dwindling birth rates mean ageing populations place a larger burden on the youth. Progress isn’t the overthrow of the old by the young, rather that we all want to leave behind a world better than the one we found.

Families don’t suffer from the scale and diversity challenges of countries.

Everyone in the family can be raised with the goal of leaving behind a world better than the one they found.

Conversation Starters:

  • How long have the decision-makers in your family been in those roles?
  • What term-limit policies does your family have to avoid decision-makers becoming ‘stale’?
  • How does your family recognise the stakeholders and future owners/stewards?
  • What is done to engage and prepare them?

Further Readings:

60% of Asia’s HNW not planning for succession
Time for Saudi families to review their succession plans
WHY PLANNING FOR SUCCESSION IS PLANNING FOR SUCCESS
HOW FREEDOM FROM WEALTH AS YOU AGE CAN OPEN A NEW WORLD OF POSSIBILITIES
Succession Planning: 20 Tips For A Smooth Transition Of Leadership
Murdoch succession battle: Estate planning lessons for multi-gen wealth
Generational conflict has been around forever – just ask the ancients
Are Americans Too Old?

The post Family Gerontocracy appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/succession-planning/family-gerontocracy/

Do Married-ins Sit at the Table?

Perhaps the second-most asked question about families relates to the role of married-ins. Are they invited to family meetings? What role should they have?

This is a very passionate issue, and the view of family members is often driven by family culture and emotion rather than logic. But that isn’t a formula for good decision-making.

Let’s break this down and consider the issue through a risk lens.

What are the risks of having married-ins participate in meetings (or more broadly, be part of the family enterprise) or the reasons not to include them?

  • Their time as family members is not as permanent as ‘blood’
  • Matters discussed at these meetings are considered ‘private’
  • They may come from different cultures, which can lead to conflict

Now, what are either the benefits of involving them, or the risks or not doing so?

  • They will hear information first-hand rather than second-hand (i.e. via their ‘blood’ partners)
  • They have skills and perspective that can make a positive contribution to the family
  • Making them feel like outsiders can build resentment

You may agree or disagree with any of the points above, and you may have your own reasons to add.

But no matter what, this constitutes a framework to debate and then reach a rational decision, and hopefully one that includes relevant stakeholders. Therefore, a good family decision.

There are two ways to join a family: birth & marriage, and two ways to leave a family: death and divorce.

Families devote so much time dealing with the complexities of marriage, and preparing for the possibility of divorce. Yet as Jay Hughes points out, every family starts with a marriage between two people who may have been strangers at some point, and who may have come from very different cultures. Further, he notes that married-ins are the only people who choose to join a family.

What’s the right thing to do? That is a trick question (and one I don’t fall for when families ask me).

Sometimes, decisions like this can lead to self-fulfilling negative feedback loops. Exclude a family member (not just married-ins) from discussions, and they can become disenfranchised, which can fracture the family and lead to conflict. That leads to the family wanting to exclude them further, and on we go.

Because this issue has such a strong cultural lens for many families, it’s particularly important for advisors to take a very neutral stance and respect the family’s culture. At the same time, guide them to make an informed choice.

Remember: there is no right or wrong; there are only consequences.

Conversation Starters:

What is your family’s definition of “family”?

What is the family’s experience and narrative around marriage break downs?

Whom do you trust more: your sibling’s partner? Or your partner’s sibling?

Further Readings:

How Changes In The Family Can Benefit—Not Harm—The Family Business
Love, marriage and prenups: The role of family dynamics in growing families
Here’s Why The Successful Family Business Needs An Outsider

The post Do Married-ins Sit at the Table? appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/family-governance/do-married-ins-sit-at-the-table/

Happy & Wealthy: Because of, or in spite of?

Wealth doesn’t make people happy. And in other breaking news, gravity causes objects to fall to the ground.

A New York Magazine article – “What Does Extreme Wealth Do to the Brain?” – is an interesting study as it interviews both wealth creators and inheritors to understand how wealth affects them.

Recently catching up with a friend who raises capital for venture funds and is a venture partner in some funds, I asked why he does this: he loves being involved in the latest and most dynamic innovations.

I reflected that my work with families is the opposite – the oldest and most immutable thing that is human nature. The reason history “rhymes rather than repeats” is because people don’t really change. The repeating generational patterns within families are a great example of this.

The perception among people without wealth is that wealth makes people worse. I disagree. If you’re a nice person when you have no money, you will still be a nice person with it, and ditto if you are an a**hole.

In the word-association test I use with families, the word “wealth” is often associated with “freedom” and “choices”.

But for some, this is a double-edged sword.

What makes our brains unhappy is complexity and uncertainty.

The freedom to do absolutely anything can trigger very unpleasant emotions.

While the first-person accounts are diverse and informative, the highlight for me was the interview with Dr Paul Hokemeyer, psychotherapist to very rich people.

He identified eight steps that turn an “ordinary wealthy person” (what exactly is that?) into a monster.

The first two are key: wealth identity, and isolation. Each is worth a long article and I want to focus on the second because it’s the tipping point.

Isolation is about “private [anything]”: clubs, schools, neighbourhoods, planes. And the sycophantic world of “private wealth”, where people are nice to you for purely altruistic reasons … not.

When you live in a bubble, surrounded by people like you and experiencing the world in a completely different way to the other 99.9%, you lose touch with “the real world”.

The value of this insight is that is contains the seeds of the solution. The parents I’ve seen do it well make sure they expose their kids to the outside – often to Third World suffering.

Gratitude is one of the most important things to maintain, and seeing “regular life” sets a baseline and a constant reminder for our blessings, so that they can indeed remain blessings.

This is where active and strategic (not chequebook) philanthropy as a family can be such a powerful tool to help raise kids and live with purpose.

Conversation Starters:

Word-association test: “wealth is …”

How homogeneous and isolated is your life and social circle?

How does your social circle and that of your parents/children differ?

What does a loaf of bread cost?

Further Reading:

8 Simple Ways to Live A Stealth Wealth Lifestyle and Stay Inconspicuous
Billionaire Philanthropists Have Discovered a New Way to Give Away Their Fortunes
What Family Office Leaders Need To Know About Conscious Capitalism
Massive Wealth Transfer, Sunsets And New Models – Philanthropy In Flux
What Does Extreme Wealth Do To The Brain?

The post Happy & Wealthy: Because of, or in spite of? appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/ultra-high-net-worth/happy-wealthy-because-of-or-in-spite-of/

Family, Friends & Fools

In the world of venture-backed startups, very early stage capital raises for a startup often come from what are called “FFFs” – family members, friends and fools.

At a company lifecycle stage that is even before “pre-seed”, why do they invest? Possibly because they do not objectively assess the risk they are taking. Mostly, as a favour to help someone out.

    • Family? Makes sense. My parents helped with my businesses.
    • Fools? I understand.
    • Friends? Wow! What a friend! Or maybe not?

For wealthy people, friends occupy an ‘interesting’ space.

Sometimes, they are seeking “secondary fame” – being associated with someone famous and enjoying the parties and high life. While it might be nice to have an entourage, they are hangers-on rather than friends.

They might be looking for commercial gain – access to deals from someone who has the “Midas touch”. It might be quality deals they can’t access, and it might be a long-shot startup that will return either 100x or a doughnut.

Friendship can change as someone’s wealth changes. Jen Risher wrote about this poignantly in her excellent first-hand account We Need to Talk.

 

The fact is that people look at you differently when you are wealthy or have a public profile. They make assumptions (mostly wrong) and prejudge.

Being judged by people who don’t actually know you is awful at any time. This is amplified by the nature and reach of social media.

“So many parasocial relationships; so little time”.

 

Telling the difference between a friendship that is relational vs transactional is difficult.

The easiest way is to experience a crisis or loss of status, particularly a public one. Then you quickly find out who your real friends are, and fake ones are exposed for what they really are. Unfortunately, it’s probably the worst way to find out as well.

 

This is why peer networks are so valuable and sought after by the wealthy.

They can be safe spaces with people who are “like you” and who “get it”.

Places where you can talk about the genuine challenges in your life with others who recognise they are genuine challenges, despite financial abundance. First world problems are still problems.

 

This is also why people from wealthy families might prefer to date and marry people who are from similar financial circumstances.

While it might seem snobby, it’s actually prudent.

And as a wise person once said – paraphrasing Phil McGraw – “if you marry for money, that’s all you’ll get”.

 

Of course, filters like these are no guarantee. There are people who want something from you everywhere.

It’s not healthy to live in constant fear of this.

Over the years, I’ve met many fund managers, and that has helped me develop an ability to discern good ones, or at least filter out the dodgy ones.

What people call “gut instinct” is actually pattern-matching.

It’s an important skill for anyone to develop.

Conversation Starters:

Which of your friends would be there for you in a crisis?

What markers do you look for in friends?

If your financial circumstance has changed, how have friendships also changed?

Further Reading:

PHILIP MACKEOWN’S KEY FINDINGS FROM THE 18TH EUROPEAN FAMILIES IN BUSINESS FORUM

Loyalty is not a strategy: How family businesses get stuck with the wrong people

 

The post Family, Friends & Fools appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/ultra-high-net-worth/family-friends-fools/

We Need Death

I know many people who have way more money than they need; I’ve never met someone with more time than they need.

Abundance is usually seen as a positive. That certainly applies for an ‘abundance mindset’ rather than a ‘scarcity mindset’. But does it translate to money?

The more we have of anything, the less its value.

  • For some people, ten dollars is not material
  • For some people, a thousand dollars is not material
  • And for some, every single dollar is material

The value we ascribe to anything is relative to how much of it we have.

Scarcity creates value.

Hermes could make plenty more Birkin bags. Ditto Lamborghini and cars. They choose to limit supply to make them more popular and increase demand.

With way more money than you need, is yet another Birkin or Lambo going to fulfil you?

The more you have, the less you have.

Now consider the anomaly that is death.

It is the most certain thing in the world – in statistical terms we can say the lifetime risk of death is 100%. That’s fancy for “everyone dies”.

Yet discussing estate and succession plans in families is one of the hardest things, especially for wealth originators (G1).

Why? Because

  • Our strongest emotion is fear
  • Our greatest fear is of the unknown
  • The greatest unknown is … death

Death means life has limits.

Death brings a scarcity to life.

And, as Brigitte (personifying death in Collateral Beauty) said …

“Death gives time all of its value”

When money is abundant, its value diminishes.

Time is scarce for everyone, which increases its value.

What would you pay for a 1963 Ferrari 250 GTO?

What would you pay for an extra five years of life?

No matter how much money we have or don’t have, our most precious thing in the world is our time.

I learned this the hard way.

It made me far more conscious about how I ‘spend’ my time.

That doesn’t mean I’ve given up Candy Crush; it means I enjoy it and play when I want to.

We can take two things from this:

  1. Understanding what is truly abundant, and what abundance leads to diminishing values. Non-financial family capital – human, intellectual, social & spiritual – are forms of capital whose value has no negative side effects.
  2. Looking at scarcity to find true value & wealth – time and experiences.

Conversation Starters:

What is a dollar worth to you?

What is your most precious ‘thing’? Why?

What is your most memorable experience? Why?

What would you do with an extra hour each day?

Further Reading:

U.S. Billionaires Are Living Longer, Making Heirs Wait
Unlocking true wealth
How Generation Pledge Helps Affluent Heirs Chart Their Giving Course
Baby Boomers Embrace ‘Die With Zero,’ Passing On Less Money To Their Kids

The post We Need Death appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/ultra-high-net-worth/we-need-death/

Man Bites Dog – Anti-Zionist Jews

Jewish Anti-Zionists are there for the attention, and the media fawn over them because they too realise they are an anomaly. They have become “useful idiots” in the current wave of antisemitism surging around the world.

They may mask their feelings about the State of Israel as criticism, but the red line is very simple.

Zionism’s goal is a Jewish state in our ancestral homeland. Sure, Zionism comes in many forms: secular, religious, cultural, etc. These subgroups have argued and continue to argue about what kind of Jewish state we should have, but they all agree on the basics: Jews. Nation State. Israel.

Similarly, people have argued and continued to argue about the actions of the Israeli government of the day. Israel is a melting pot of every different kind of Jew, plus a non-Jewish population of around 20%. Former president Chaim Weizmann famously said “I head a nation of a million presidents”. Now there are around ten million all of whom know better than Bibi. Yet despite their differences, the vast majority will still agree on the basics: Jews. Nation State. Israel.

By contrast, Anti-Zionists deny the right of Jews to have a nation state in Israel. That’s an anathema to the Israel-centricity of the Jewish religion going back over 3000 years. You may not be a Zionist – to make aliya, or support the state, but to deny its right to exist? Bear in mind also that not every non-Zionist is an anti-Zionist – there is a grey zone of neutrality. Jewish anti-Zionists – despite their protestations and misrepresentations – are a miniscule proportion of Jews. The media knows this and loves them for exactly this reason.

They are disproportionately reported upon in the news because they are the “man bits dog” news story that journalists crave. Not boring old “dog bites man”, “plane lands safely”, and “Jew wants his people’s legacy to endure”.

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators – many of whom are anti-Zionists – love them too, because they give their hatred and rhetoric a mask of legitimacy. “See, we have Jews demonstrating with us!” they say. This has just become the latest version of “some of my best friends are Jews”.

So what can we do about them? Consider the options:

  1. Try to change their minds? Don’t waste your time. Their views are driven by social identity, not by logic. They do not respond to rational arguments, let alone silly things like historical facts.
  2. Debate them in public forums like the media? Another waste of time. It just gives them oxygen and the attention they crave.
  3. Lobby the media? Hang on, don’t we control the media?! But seriously, the media won’t stop chasing sensational stories.

Rather, we have to unite around a simple truth: anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

By our nature, our history, our diversity – ethnic, geographic, theological – Judaism is a “big tent” with room for almost everyone. Everyone except anti-Zionists. We must draw the line there. They cannot hold that belief and also lay claim to being part of the Jewish people.

The post Man Bites Dog – Anti-Zionist Jews appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/blog/politics/man-bites-dog-anti-zionist-jews/

Pressing pause: Why stepping away is the new measure of wealth

By Kristen Oliveri

In a world that never stops scrolling, pinging, and demanding our attention, the most radical act of wealth may simply be learning how to pause.

For this Wealth Reimagined Q&A, I sat down with David Werdiger to explore what it really means to step away, from technology, from constant urgency, and from the noise that so often pulls us away from ourselves and the people we love. 

Werdiger brings a rare and deeply relevant perspective to this conversation. As a second-generation family member, a 30-year tech entrepreneur, and the Director of Nathanson Pearson in Melbourne, he has spent decades working with high-net-worth families navigating succession, governance, and the emotional complexity of generational wealth.

A couple of years ago, I wrote up the model in a journal article called “The Time-Purpose Map”. 

 Q: You’ve written and spoken about the “wealth of time.” How do you define that idea, and why do you believe time can be the truest form of wealth?

A: In business, we think about opportunity cost and marginal benefit. The thing about financial wealth is that the more you have, the marginal value of each dollar goes down. This is especially the case for people who have way more than they or their families could ever need. That means we can reach a point where more money won’t lead to more happiness. Research shows that point – in terms of annual income – is much lower than you might think.

 The word “wealth” actually has its roots in the word “wellness”, but these days the connotations are usually financial. Jay Hughes articulated five forms of “family capital”: again, financial capital is the most obvious, but in his framing it’s just there to pay for the other and more important forms of family capital: human, social, intellectual, and spiritual.

 So what is true wealth? It’s the stuff that brings “wellness”, and what makes us happy. Again, the research shows that more “things” don’t make us happy. Rather, it’s experiences. And that is how we use our … time!

Q: Many leaders and families feel pressure to always be doing and achieving. How do you help them understand the value of stillness and intentional pauses in their lives and decision-making?

A: People talk about being “asset rich & cash poor”. I talk about being “cash rich & time poor”. I’m as driven as anyone to be doing and achieving, and personally am quite fixated on doing things as efficiently as possible. Yet I’ve found my best thinking and ideation is while taking a walk with thumping music in my ears, or in the shower, sometimes while meditating, or over a long and well-lubricated meal with friends. More isn’t better. The stillness and pauses are part of the natural balance that we need in our lives. Pausing is actually a productivity hack!

Q; Can you tell us about your journey writing this book? What inspired it, and what did the process teach you about your own relationship with time and presence?

A: Wow – how long do we have? I started writing this book after completing a masters and deciding to write a book rather than do a PhD. This was about 15 years ago. The book was originally about the nature of identity in the modern world. I won’t bore you with that now, but if anyone’s interested it’s one of my pet topics. After talking to publishers, I put that whole project on hold and instead wrote Transition, which launched my career as a family enterprise advisor. Once that got traction, I turned my attention back to the original book project. After four pivots, the book became about the world of social media, how it has evolved to become so embedded in our lives, and how it is a silent thief of our most precious resource – our time. It steals time from us so effectively we don’t even notice!

Q: In a world that celebrates productivity and constant connection, how do you personally set boundaries with technology and create space for reflection? 

A: For me, observing Sabbath every week does exactly that. From Friday night to Saturday night, I don’t use a phone or a computer, don’t watch TV, and don’t drive. I’ve been doing that my entire life as part of Orthodox Jewish practice, but in recent years it’s taken on a completely new meaning for me in addition to the religious. It used to be restrictive – don’t do this; don’t do that. Now it’s freedom from being tethered to technology. By subtracting that from my life for one day a week, it creates space for reflection and for more meaningful activity. For in-person connection with family and friends that are not interrupted by a buzz in the pocket or a notification on the screen.

Q: What are some small, practical ways that people can begin to “press pause” in their everyday lives, even when they feel too busy to do so?

A: Taking a technology break for one whole day every week is hard for many people. I’m fortunate to have grown up with it. I learned from a young age that when the phone rings, you actually don’t have to answer it. It seems quite obvious when you think about it, but how often do you feel obligated to respond to your phone while in the middle of something else? 

There are many opportunities to “press pause” in everyday life. Whether it’s putting phones away and on silent during meal time, having discipline about phones next to your bed, or even waiting just a few rings before picking up a call. All of these can shift us slowly to respond rather than react to technology. There’s a bit of Steven Covey’s first habit in that: what makes us uniquely human is our ability to pause in between stimulus and response.

Q: You’re also developing a retreat experience around these concepts. What can participants expect, and what do you hope they’ll take away from that time together?

 A: As I said, pausing from tech for a whole day once a week is hard for many people. The retreat is a way to experience it fully and learn how to introduce it into your life in a way that will help you. It starts on a Friday at lunch time with discussions about how to prepare for a day of rest and setting your own boundaries. On Friday night we officially switch off and then enjoy a long dinner technology free. That first stage is “passive rest”. On Saturday morning, there are activities like exercise, breakfast with a newspaper, walks in nature, and then a long lunch. That stage is “active rest”. The third state of “transformative rest” is on Saturday afternoon when we consider how the weekly pause from technology can inform a better relationship with technology on the other six days. 

A day of rest is not just about respite – you can only really appreciate the impact of tech on your life by stepping back from it. Then on Saturday night, we get our phones and laptops back, and spend time integrating that experience into regular daily life, wrapping things up on Sunday about lunchtime. 

Long shared meals with friends and family are such a powerful institution in society, and one that has been chipped away by our busy lives. It’s no surprise those activities are a key part of the retreat experience. We need them in our lives.

Q: Do you think our culture’s relationship with time and technology is changing? Are you seeing more people seek out a slower, more thoughtful pace of life?

A: When I think about productivity, and remembering a time before email and mobile phones, it’s quite staggering how much we are can achieve these days using technology. The ability to communicate anywhere any time, and access almost the entirety of human knowledge from our mobile devices is life changing. It reminds me of the movie Zodiac (2007) about one of the first serial killers in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. Back then, people would stay at home because they were waiting for a phone call, or need to stop at a phone booth to make a call. Today, that seems absurd, but that’s how things were. And I wonder: how on earth could we do everything we do without the help of these devices?

We used to rush home to watch our favourite TV shows, or record them on tapes. In terms of our relationship with time and tech, we were slaves to time. Now, we can access whatever content we want, when we want. Technology has given us a form of mastery over time (but not time travel). But the flip side to the productivity is the pace of life and the challenges of switching off. I think people are struggling with it. They accept that life is better, and live with the unintended consequences of that. Some feel almost trapped. They have an awareness that mobile devices have taken away some of their agency but they don’t see a path out of it.

Q: What does a “wealth of time” look like to you personally? How do you know when you’re living in alignment with that principle?

A: As I said, true “wealth” is “wellness”. It’s not about money; it’s about a sense of wellbeing. In my work with families, I focus on non-financial family capital which is the most important kind. If you have way more money than you need, but you can’t sit at a meal with your family or you have health issues, are you wealthy?

Wealth of time means you are in control of your most precious resource: your time. You are using time intentionally, and it’s serving you, rather than you constantly chasing it. It’s a state of mind as much as a practice. The families who thrive are the ones who reclaim their time, not the ones who work the hardest.

Q: And finally, if there’s one message you’d like readers to remember about the “power of pause”, what would it be?

A: Claude Debussy said, “Music is the space between the notes”. Family leaders who pause, and understand the power of that, create the space for generational alignment, better decisions, and stronger relationships.

This article is originally posted at Wealth Reimagine.

The post Pressing pause: Why stepping away is the new measure of wealth appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/events-news-media/press-releases/pressing-pause-why-stepping-away-is-the-new-measure-of-wealth/

Family & Fame

Another week; another celebrity family member revealing the “truth” behind the public façade. Are the Beckhams any different?

Let’s break this down.

One of the prices of fame is that your life is open to the media and the public.

For families, it’s important to consider “primary fame” and “secondary fame”.

If you are famous, what are the limits of public interest?

Is it just what you are famous for (public role, influence, sports or entertainment talent, being famous)? Does it extend to your relationships (who have “secondary fame”)?

Your partner and your children may not have signed up for this, but media may consider them ‘fair game’.

How you consider their interests and protect them is a challenge.

If that wasn’t hard enough, now think about family fame: the Kardashians, the Beckhams, the Windsors, the Obamas.

David (sport) and Victoria (entertainment) Beckham each had primary fame before they connected. This extended to them as a couple, and as a family once they had children.

A bit like the Three Circle Model of family business, they live in the intersection of family and the ‘business’ of fame.

What are the implications for family relationships?

In wealthy families, money is a proxy and an amplifier.

Why do the hard work of debating relationship issues when you can use higher stakes like money to play out revenge and rivalry scripts?

If the family is also famous, the modern proxy and amplifier is … social media.

Don’t like the family public narrative that your parents are presenting? There are millions of sympathetic people only as far as your phone. Because the algorithm rewards conflict and strife, its amplifying power is so much greater.

How the Beckhams differ from historical famous families is their online lives.

Brooklyn’s choice to jump immediately to Instagram rather than have it out privately is a generational shift.

‘Always online’ families can end up performing their roles rather than living them.

It’s common for family members to take the easiest path in managing emotions about their family.

What is the hard path?

  • Raising children from a young age on what it means to be part of the family
  • Giving them a voice and affirming their agency
  • Helping them make active choices about how they manage their own brand and fame, relative to that of the family
  • Establishing a ‘safe space’ of family meetings where everyone can say what needs to be said and deal with issues privately.

According to family systems theory, actions of one family member cause reactions from others. The efforts of parents like the Beckhams to ‘manage’ the family image can spur an assertion of independence on the part of their children.

Every family needs a time and place where the algorithm cannot intrude.

Where they can just be … a family.

Conversation Starters:

How do you manage your family’s ‘brand’?

Who is at the table to discuss that?

What rules does your family have about online presence?

Further Reading:

The Generation Gap in American Politics
The challenge when you become rich: Stay ‘normal’
New Study Exposes Ultra-High-Net-Worth Families’ Vulnerabilities
Expert warns of ‘Succession syndrome’ among the wealthy
What is succession planning? How to pass on wealth, control and knowledge to the next generation
Four Steps For Family Offices To Start Managing Risks

The post Family & Fame appeared first on David Werdiger.

source https://davidwerdiger.com/ultra-high-net-worth/family-fame/