Rupert Murdoch's recent attempt to alter the terms of his family trust, which governs the future of his vast media empire, has sparked important discussions in the world of family office governance.
The Murdoch Family Trust, established in 1999, was designed to divide control of the family’s assets equally among Murdoch’s four children—Lachlan, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence—ensuring a shared legacy. Murdoch, however, sought to change this structure to consolidate power with his eldest son, Lachlan, whom he believes is most aligned with his vision for the empire. This failed attempt has highlighted the tensions between control and legacy in family governance.
From a family office perspective, Murdoch’s situation illustrates the inherent challenges in balancing the desire for control with the reality of creating a long-term family legacy. The rigidity of the trust structure, which has stood for over two decades, left Murdoch with limited flexibility to alter the terms in his favour. This lack of control over the future of his empire can be seen as a symbolic loss for Murdoch, who has built a global media empire that has been tightly linked to his personal leadership and vision. His attempt to alter the trust in favour of Lachlan may be viewed as an effort to assert final control over his legacy, ensuring that it is directed by the child he believes is most aligned with his values.
However, family legacy is, by definition, something that is meant to outlast its creator. The terms of Murdoch's trust were designed to divide control among his children evenly, reflecting his decision to create a lasting family legacy rather than a dynastic empire controlled by one individual. By doing so, Murdoch was attempting to establish a “family legacy,” a structure that allowed the next generation to share in the responsibility of managing the empire. This approach reflects a broader trend seen in family offices, where wealth and power are distributed evenly to avoid creating a monopoly within a single branch of the family.
his tension between control and legacy is not unique to Murdoch. In other prominent family businesses, such as the Walton family of Walmart or the Koch family of Koch Industries, there have been similar challenges. Both families have grappled with questions of succession and how to divide power among siblings while ensuring the family’s values endure. The Waltons, for example, have intentionally kept control of Walmart within the family, but with a focus on governance structures that distribute decision-making power to a broader group, rather than concentrating it in the hands of a single successor.
Murdoch’s situation underscores an important point for family offices: once a legacy is established, it is inherently outside the founder’s control. Whether or not a business empire is passed on to one individual or shared among multiple heirs, the legacy itself will always evolve in ways the founder cannot predict. This shift from control to legacy management is a delicate process that requires careful consideration of family dynamics and governance structures to ensure a lasting, harmonious future for the next generation.
