A practical case study from the construction supply industry on speechless transitions and communication gaps
This case study is based on my ongoing research into external and internal corporate succession in German family-owned manufacturing SMEs. It is based on an interview with the successor, several conversations with employees, and an analysis of internal documents. At the express request of the company, all names and persons involved have been anonymized to prevent any conclusions being drawn about the real company.
The case impressively demonstrates how communication, rather than contracts, strongly influences the course and quality of a handover, and what role unspoken loyalties, symbolic acts, and narrative gaps play in this process.
The background: a solid company with quiet fractures
Marenko GmbH, a medium-sized company in southern Germany with 120 employees, manufactures highly specialized profiles for interior design and industrial building technology. Solidly positioned, owner-managed for decades, with long-standing customer relationships in B2B business, especially in the construction and renovation segment.
Karl M., the second-generation managing director and owner, ran the company for over 40 years. An engineer, technician, and doer, he was a man with a clear stance, but not one for big words. His word was law in the company, but his communication was reserved, pragmatic, and rarely personal. Decisions were often not explained, but expected. It worked as long as the framework conditions remained stable.
In the spring of 2024, the company was handed over to his son Tobias M., an industrial engineer with external professional experience in an industrial group. The handover had been formally prepared for a long time: the company shares were transferred, a managing director contract was drawn up, the banks were informed, and a transition phase with dual management was agreed upon. On paper, everything was in perfect order.
But within the organization, nothing was in order, at least not in terms of communication.
The day of the handover: an email instead of a word
The internal announcement came in a circular email:
“Dear colleagues, we are pleased to announce that Mr. Tobias M. has taken over sole management of the company with effect from March 1. We would like to thank Mr. Karl M. for his many years of successful leadership and wish Tobias M. every success.”
No staff meeting, no official farewell speech, no joint appearance. The father said goodbye with a quiet withdrawal from management, without a single address to the staff.
The news was no secret within the company. And yet it was treated like a taboo. In production, people whispered behind closed doors:
“So now he’s the boss… Let’s see how long that lasts.”
“Is that really what the old man wanted?”
“I think he still has the keys to the warehouse.”
Tobias M. wanted to start with energy himself. He organized a strategy workshop, digitized the reporting structure, and lowered some approval hurdles. This was recognized professionally. But the atmosphere remained reserved.
“I had the feeling that I was speaking in a room where everyone was listening, but no one was responding,” he said in an interview. “It was like a vacuum: I was there – but somehow I wasn’t.”
The old language and its silence
What Tobias M. underestimated was that over decades, the company had developed an implicit communication style, shaped by the father. Decisions were communicated concisely, discussions were avoided, and questions were interpreted as mistrust. Those who were socialized within the system understood this code. Those who did not know it had to laboriously feel their way around.
The result: the new managing director spoke a different language, one that was analytical, open, and dialogue-oriented. But this language found no resonance. Many of the long-standing employees did not know whether to interpret or question his words. The new language remained foreign or was interpreted as weakness.
At the same time, the father remained present. Although he vacated his office and handed over operational management, he remained the owner, stayed in the background, and occasionally appeared on the premises. He did not talk about the handover. And it was precisely this silence that led to a gap in interpretation:
“Maybe he’s disappointed?”
“Did he prefer someone else?”
“Will he intervene if something goes wrong?”
The employees felt as if they were in limbo. Formal power had been handed over, but symbolic power had not. And without symbolism, communication remains fragile.
The double shadow
Inside the company, an invisible dual leadership continued to operate. Officially, there was only one managing director, but many decisions were made or postponed with the senior manager in mind.
For example, Tobias M. wanted to hire a marketing agency to modernize the company logo and brand image. It was a simple decision that was within budget. But the commercial director asked for a postponement “until Karl had been asked.”
Such situations were repeated. The managers did not know whether the new managing director had the final say. The old boss remained silent – and that was interpreted as an implicit veto.
In organizational research, this is referred to as a “shadow principal,” an authority figure who is no longer active but still culturally influential. As long as this shadow is not actively removed, the new leadership remains symbolically undermined.
The turning point: three minutes of plain talk
Three months after the handover, Tobias M. invited everyone to a staff meeting. For the first time, he asked his father to say a few official words about the handover.
Karl M. spoke for three minutes:
„Thank you for your many years of loyalty and cooperation. I have led this company for a long time – now it is time to let go. My son Tobias is now running the company. He has my full confidence. I will be taking a back seat in the future.“
It was not a dramatic appearance. No applause. No tears. But it was a symbolic act. A performative speech act in Austin’s sense: by saying it, reality was accomplished.
After that, something noticeably changed. Tobias was addressed directly more often. Decisions were implemented more quickly. The first productive conflicts arose, which was a good sign.
Analysis: What this case shows
The Marenko case is exemplary in many ways, especially for owner-managed medium-sized companies with a strong founder or patriarchal influence.
It shows five central communicative fault lines:
- Formal succession ≠ symbolic successionLegal transfer is not synonymous with acceptance within the organization. Without symbolic acts, succession remains incomplete.
- The significance of silenceWhat is not said is interpreted, usually negatively. Silence creates uncertainty, encourages rumors, and reinforces old power structures.
- Language as cultural practiceLeadership communication must be accessible, but it must also transform. New language needs context, interpretation, and support.
- Loyalty to people, not to functionsIn many family businesses, employees‘ loyalty is primarily to the owner as a person, not to the role or structure.
- Narrative void leads to loss of orientationWithout a common narrative (“Why is he taking over? What is his vision?”), the organization lacks a shared history.
Recommendations for action from research practice
Numerous interviews and case studies have revealed proven communication practices that can constructively accompany transitions such as Marenko’s:
- Set up planned handover communication as a projectWith clear milestones: farewell, introduction, joint statement, symbolism.
- Consciously shape the narrative“What are we saying about this succession and why now?” A common line of communication with a before-and-after message is crucial.
- Actively remove old authorities from power – with your voice, not with silenceA public statement by the senior partner is often more important than any entry in the commercial register.
- Accompany communication – don’t delegate itInternal family moderation, an external coach, or communication consulting can open up silent spaces.
- Take symbolic gestures seriouslyThe new email footer, the seat at the conference table, the greeting on the website – all of these things have an effect.
Conclusion: Change requires language, not just structure
The Marenko case is exemplary of many transfers in German SMEs that are structurally well planned but communicatively underexposed. The result is not an open break, but a slow erosion of trust, clarity, and acceptance.
Succession is more than just strategy, tax, and structure. Above all, it is communication.
And that begins when someone is willing not only to act, but also to speak.
In the end, it was a single sentence that made the difference at Marenko:
“He has my full confidence.”
A sentence spoken by the right person at the right time. In a room that had been ready for it for a long time – and was just waiting for someone to finally open it.