How sibling rivalry becomes generational damage
(Last of two parts)
If Part 1 examined how sibling rivalry escalates when power enters the family, Part 2 confronts a more uncomfortable truth: most destructive sibling conflicts are incubated long before power is transferred—often through parental inaction.
In my work with multigenerational families across Asia, sibling conflict rarely comes as a surprise. What surprises parents is not that their children are fighting, but that the conflict is so deep, personal and resistant to repair. By the time it becomes visible, the damage has often been years in the making.
Parents rarely intend to create rivalry. Most act out of love. Some believe that treating children “equally” is the fairest approach. Others avoid difficult conversations in the hope of preserving harmony. Many assume their children will sort things out once they are no longer around.
Yet intention does not negate consequence.
When parents fail to govern relationships while they still hold moral authority, they leave behind unfinished emotional business. Siblings do not simply inherit assets or titles; they inherit ambiguity, unspoken expectations, and unresolved competition. Power then magnifies what was never addressed.
One of the most common parental blind spots is the belief that love alone is enough. Love, however, does not clarify roles, define authority or establish boundaries. Without governance, love becomes insufficient protection against rivalry.
Parents also underestimate how deeply children internalize perceived differences in trust and responsibility. Who was consulted more often? Who was entrusted with sensitive matters? Who was protected from consequences—and who was expected to endure them? These patterns, even when unintentional, shape lifelong narratives of entitlement or grievance.
Delayed succession is another critical fault line. Parents postpone naming successors because they fear hurting feelings. In reality, delay does not preserve harmony; it simply postpones conflict until it is far harder to manage. When succession is unclear, siblings are left to compete for validation and legitimacy. Silence invites speculation. Speculation breeds resentment.
Equally damaging is the assignment of informal roles without accountability. One child becomes the confidant. Another becomes the enforcer. Another absorbs conflict to keep the peace. Over time, these roles harden into identities. By adulthood, siblings are no longer equals; they are competitors shaped by parental design.
In Asia, the role of in-laws adds further complexity. Parents often avoid setting boundaries, hoping goodwill will prevail. Instead, undefined influence forces siblings to fight proxy wars through spouses and advisers. What could have remained manageable tension becomes entrenched division.
The consequences of these blind spots rarely surface immediately. They emerge later, when parents are no longer present to intervene and when the stakes are higher—authority, reputation, wealth and legacy. At that point, reconciliation becomes difficult not because siblings lack goodwill, but because pride has replaced trust.
What parents must understand is that conflict itself is not the enemy. Avoidance is. Healthy families do not eliminate disagreement; they design structures to contain it. They create forums for dialogue, rules for engagement, and trusted mechanisms for mediation—while parents still hold authority and respect.
Gradual transition also matters. Sudden withdrawal of parental leadership creates power vacuums, and power vacuums invite rivalry. Parents who step back deliberately—allowing siblings to practice shared decision-making while still providing guidance—significantly reduce the risk of destructive competition.
Perhaps most importantly, parents must leave behind more than assets. Wills distribute wealth. Governance distributes clarity. But purpose distributes unity. Families anchored in a shared narrative fight less over control because they understand what they are protecting.
Whether the context is politics or business, the lesson is the same: without governance, disruption is inevitable. Blood ties do not protect institutions. Silence does not preserve harmony. Time does not heal what structure was meant to prevent.
Sibling rivalry left unmanaged does not fade with age. It hardens with power. And when parents are no longer around to contain it, the cost is paid not just by siblings, but by the generations that follow.
Time to reflect
Together, Parts 1 and 2 point to a hard truth: sibling rivalry escalates not because families lack love, but because they lack governance.
Power merely exposes what was left unresolved. Whether in politics or business, families that fail to define roles, boundaries and decision rights early leave their successors to negotiate power through conflict rather than structure.
Legacy is preserved not by intention alone, but by timely governance and the courage to address discomfort before it becomes destructive.
The author is a family governance advisor based in Asia, working with multigenerational families on succession, sibling dynamics and governance structures designed to protect both relationships and long-term legacy. He has been selected to serve as a mentor for the Singapore Institute of Directors Board Readiness Program, supporting professionals and family members aspiring to sit on Boards, particularly in contexts where family dynamics, ownership and authority intersect.
