"It quickly became, and continues to be, the central organizing framework for understanding family business systems, used by families, consultants and academics worldwide." (John A. Davis, 2025).
I cannot help but notice by humble personal experience, that depending on the symbolic and philosophical importance of the given company to the familly's principles and values, one of the three circle sometimes tends to disapear.
As industrial farmers, my FB puts high symbolic value on the food exports industry company's activity, which makes this work very personal, almost intimate (or is it the 2nd generation co-existance that tenses the mood in that way?).
As a comparison, another FB built by the same person (grandfather), as one of the countries frist private undergraduate and postgraduate buisness school, has been much more likely to fit right into this 3 circle scheme.
The food company irrevocably excluded all potential ideas of external investors or owners, all familly members being owners, workers, and managers, while the Sup School recognized the need of external actors as equity owners, as long as the founder (grandfather) kept the majority share and complete rule of the direction. Which may refers to CK Prahalad's 1986) Dominant Logic principles regarding the original entrepreneur of some companies.
It refers to the mental model that influences a company's strategic descision making based on its past (limiting on the same time its adaptation, making it rigid to some innovations in some cases) ( C. K. Prahalad, 1986).
(John A. Davis, 2025)
@S24012870 Yassine B Your post raises a fascinating tension between symbolic attachment and strategic flexibility in family businesses. The comparison between the food export company and the business school highlights how values, ownership structure, and dominant logic shape decision-making. Your reflection on second-generation coexistence adds depth—does this rigidity create risks for future adaptation? Integrating more research-based insights or case studies could strengthen your argument. The CK Prahalad connection is great—linking it more explicitly to the three-circle model’s evolution would make your analysis even sharper. Great personal insights!