Voices from our academic community: Mind the Gap - When governance doesn’t go as written

In many family enterprises, the family charter has become a symbol of maturity and professionalisation. Yet its true value lies not in the quality of the document itself, but in the consistency between what it declares and what the family actually practices. While charters are designed to clarify values, preserve cohesion, and ensure continuity, they often collide with a more nuanced reality: that of behavior. This is where what we call an execution gap emerges: the distance between the principles written down and the actions observed within the family group.

This article was written by Raphaëlle Mattart, PhD, Academic adviser at CRAN and Member of the Centre of Entrepreneurship & Innovation (CEI) – Maastricht University

Together with my co-authors, Claudia Binz Astrachan (US) & Massimo Bau (SE), we explored this phenomenon in our paper “Do We Practice What We Preach? Ambivalent Effects of Execution Gaps in Family Constitutions”, which was among the finalists for the Best Contribution to Practice Paper 2025 at IFERA. We show that such gaps are not merely signs of inconsistency; they reveal the ongoing tensions and adjustments that shape enterprising families. A neglected family employment policy, a decision process bypassed, or a forgotten distribution charter, these discrepancies say much about how values are (or are not) embodied in governance practices.

Drawing on Behavioral Integrity Theory and Behavioral Governance Theory, we highlight a key insight: trust depends less on formal rules than on the perceived alignment between words and actions. A rule ignored does not only threaten the legitimacy of the document; it tests the family’s ability to confront its own contradictions. When a gap is overlooked, trust quietly erodes, and governance loses meaning. When it is acknowledged and discussed, it can instead become a catalyst for learning, adjustment, and unity.

It is important to understand that execution gaps are not dysfunctions per se, but challenges inherent to any living governance system. They do not signal failure, they reflect the complexity of translating intentions into action. The question is not whether they occur, but how the family chooses to respond. Recognising and addressing them openly helps reinforce coherence and trust; ignoring them allows a silent distance to grow between stated values and lived behaviors - a distance where trust slowly fades.

Ultimately, family governance is not defined by the documents themselves, but by the behaviors they inspire.