President-elect Donald Trump named Time Magazine's Person of the Year.

1000 Words.

America’s President-elect has been named Time Magazine’s person of the year; but, just how many fiscally conservative Trump fans live up to their hero’s own standard for inter-familial harmony and inclusivity?

Time Magazine's person of the year, President-elect Donald Trump, accepted said honour at the NYSE last week in the company of friends, family and colleagues. His warm demeanour was evident as those present—his people—basked in the privilege of belonging to the MAGA agenda. The prestigious title only deepens the capacity for US citizens, and for that matter residents of the Western world, to participate meaningfully during this time of global re-alignment.

However great Trump’s lead by example style may be among go-getters and deal-makers worldwide, some of his admirers fall well short of the re-elected President’s own standards for familial and interpersonal polyphony. Trump places great emphasis on household unity. In so doing he prioritises the wellbeing of family members, followed closely by that of high level business associates and long standing professional friendships, not to mention political appointees during his time in office.

Indeed, younger personnel within trumps inner circle, including non-blood varietals, seem to enter a kind of semi-familial status, whereby he takes on surrogate guardianship over them, albeit one of tough love; of a hard but fair style of nurture. Moreover, Trump appears to openly extend to confidants a brand of respect and autonomy rarely seen in public life. In reply, those close to the soon to be re-sworn in President seem to reciprocate through a voluntary show of genuine loyalty.

The same cannot necessarily be said for all high profile hard-hitting family heads, many who would be viewed as belonging to a similar super-rich conservative cohort. Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart to name a few, for whom highly publicised bouts of strategic backlash from family and friends alike suggest a somewhat less cogent interpersonal orientation. These latter examples seem to incorporate the sorts of standards which favour the business enterprise over family unity. This in stark contrast to Trump’s own attitude towards family, which has been suggested in interviews—Ben Carson on The View comes to mind—leads to a stellar display of decorum and decency.

Trump has therefore managed to successfully integrate family matters into the affairs of his enterprise, this despite spawning five children from three seperate marriages. In so doing, the seventy eight year old property tycoon come ‘politician’ seems to be on the cusp of harmoniously transferring vast amounts of wealth to the next generation of leaders within his empire. I would suggest this be no easy feat, but rather one requiring a lifetime of patience; one which prioritises the wellbeing of young, up-and-coming individuals over less savvy considerations.

Yet, in what seems rightly worrying, many rich ageing conservatives struggle to achieve harmony within their family units. Work invariably gets in the way, perhaps taking quality time away from those needing it most. In some cases belief systems, religious dogma, political doctrines, ethics, or some motley amalgam of aforementioned determinants manages to forge rifts between family members. A split, for instance, regarding the general forward direction of even a small to medium sized business can spell disaster for everyone involved, workers and colleagues included, who often struggle with fallout and feel forced to take sides.

For family businesses undergoing these and other challenging inter-generational anomalies, Trump may well serve as proof that money needn’t get in the way of family coherence. Just how Trump manages to achieve this sublime state of affairs is somewhat of a mystery. For the most part, it just seems to work. I am sure, however, that digging a little deeper might reveal a golden nugget or two.

My own perspective on how a successful transfer of family wealth may come about centres around the principles of inclusivity, proximity and periphery. The first of these seems obvious, yet is perhaps the most overlooked by some rich older conservatives, namely the kind who lack vision. These are invariably the personality types devoid of basic leadership skills, those whose own shortcomings rarely see the light of day. These short sighted individuals lack the kind of inner scrutiny and self realisation required to empower future generations. Consequently they struggle to connect not only with their own progeny, but with all promising young business people in the making.

Young people require responsibility. They yearn to be included; to be allowed to either shine or bomb, thereby to learn from their actions. Failure of the old-guard to adequately transition responsibility to the next generation of budding young leaders inhibits stability and family legacy alike. Furthermore, from a youngster’s perspective, a sterile work environment devoid of genuine ownership can only limit their potential as they rise up through the ranks of business. Conversely, facilitating younger and less experienced family members as they brush up against problems, in effect providing an environment in which mistakes and failures may well occur, encourages them to participate in a lifetime of learning. Suppressing this organic phase of personal development constitutes a misguided use of power and influence.

This is where proximity comes into play. It is in fact only possible to maintain quality access to one’s offspring by wholeheartedly integrating them into family operations. Without their bonafide inclusion, a son, daughter or any other family member will over time simply stray to greener pastures in search of adequate acceptance. In so doing they invariably begin to spend less meaningful time with members of their own family. As they successfully make a name for themselves elsewhere, they may even begin to resent those family heads partially responsible for their early stagnation.

Periphery has to do with boundaries, especially as concerning money. Ageing folk are required to gradate the extent to which young family members risk business property and assets. It may seem counterintuitive for established old-timers to allocate holdings which if plundered will result in a controlled failure, however, this is a critical component of slowly transitioning family fortunes over time. A young leader must be given autonomous responsibility for the growth or decline of a range of ‘expendable’ assets, thereby learning to manage risk.

If Trump's plan for America is to come to fruition, he will need to forge considerable change. What exactly this constitutes remains to be seen. However, so far as his own family is concerned, he seems—for the time being at least—to be onto a winning formula.