The family office needs a mandate beyond the founder

A family office often begins with a practical need. Someone has to coordinate investments, organise reporting and deal with advisers. The founder knows what they want, and a small trusted team gets on with it.

Later, the office may serve several family branches, support a foundation and handle requests that range from major investments to personal administration. The original understanding no longer tells the team whose priorities should prevail.

The governing body now needs a mandate that can survive a disagreement, an absence and eventually a change of generation.

Be clear about the job

There is no single model for a family office. Start by agreeing what this one is there to do, whom it serves and which matters sit outside its remit.

Is its main purpose to oversee investments, coordinate external advisers, administer family affairs or provide several of these services? Which assets and entities are included? What requires a separate decision?

A short, specific answer gives the team a basis for accepting requests and explaining when a request needs another route. Without it, the most persistent family member can become the person who sets the workload.

Separate advice from authority

An adviser can recommend an investment without having authority to commit funds. An investment committee may have delegated powers within agreed limits. A board or another governing body may retain responsibility for larger decisions.

These roles need to match the actual legal arrangements. A family council, an investment committee and the board of a company are different bodies, even where the same people attend their meetings.

Write down who can decide, within what limits, and when an exception must be escalated. Include spending authority and instructions to banks and service providers. A title alone rarely answers these questions.

Draw the boundaries around shared interests

Consider an illustrative request for the office to invest in a business led by a relative. The proposal may be attractive. It also raises questions about whose money is at risk, who benefits and who can assess it without a personal interest.

Agree a process for such situations before a particular opportunity arrives. Identify conflicts, obtain the right independent assessment and record the decision through the appropriate body.

Keep family, operating-company and charitable resources clearly identified. Shared administration can be convenient, but it should not leave the costs, approvals or responsibilities uncertain.

Review the mandate as the family changes

A new generation may want different services or a different role in decisions. Those preferences deserve discussion, alongside the cost and capacity required to meet them.

The governing body should review whether the office still performs the agreed job, whether its reporting is useful and whether its authority remains appropriate. Include a clear route for raising dissatisfaction without turning every operational issue into a family dispute.

The mandate need not predict every request. It should give people a fair, workable way to resolve the next one, without needing the founder to interpret what everyone meant.