Future Age Survey

Who comes after the entrepreneur? One in two SMEs has the problem of succession

A survey of 1,500 companies reveals how business continuity is threatened by a centralising entrepreneurial culture and poor management training

by Gianni Rusconi

2 March 2026

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

A recent survey of more than 1,500 owners of small and medium-sized enterprises in Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna reveals an alarm, generational as well as organisational, certainly not to be underestimated: there is a lack of ready heirs and, above all, a lack of managers deemed up to the task. This was stated by the Study Centre of Future Age, a Brescia-based company specialising in change management and digitalisation services, highlighting that for 52% of the entrepreneurs interviewed, no one would be able to lead their company in the event of the founder's sudden departure, and that only 31% identify their children as potential successors (47% do not consider them ready to pick up the baton). One percentage in particular stands out as a snapshot of the emergency on the horizon: 81% of SME owners would never entrust the leadership of their company to an external manager, believing this figure to be inadequately prepared. No less important is another indicator of this 'crisis', which sees 74% of entrepreneurs considering divestment as the only way to guarantee a future for the company, with around two-thirds (68% to be precise) of this cluster attributing this stance to the inadequate ability of their managers to inherit the role and manage complex processes. Is business continuity therefore at risk, with all that this entails in terms of loss of value, discontinuity in leadership and difficulty in ensuring the survival of the company? We talked about this with Paolo Borghetti, CEO of Future Age.

More than half of the entrepreneurs do not see figures capable of leading the company in the event of the owner's sudden departure: does this indicate an organisational emergency or a cultural node?

It is a very clear sign of both, but the primary cause remains cultural. Family capitalism in Italia has historically been founded on a strongly centralising entrepreneurial figure, capable of holding together strategy, relationships, operations and often even informal control of processes. This model worked for a long time because the founder compensated for all organisational fragilities with his constant presence and outsized personal commitment. The problem emerges when the company is faced with a stress test: a sudden exit, a growth in size, a generational transition, a market crisis. In many cases there are no ready figures, simply because the company was never designed to have alternative leadership. It is not just a lack of people, but a lack of system: ill-defined roles, non-formalised responsibilities, knowledge concentrated in the heads of a few key men, often historical and often with little inclination to change. As long as the founder is there, all this remains invisible; when it is missing, it becomes evident. The real leap to make is to move from family businesses to families running businesses, where governance is structured, leadership is diffuse and the business can function independently of the day-to-day presence of the owner.

Managers are judged to be inadequate by most: does this mistrust arise in some way from a lack of competence?

Attributing everything to a lack of managerial skills is convenient, but reductive. In practice, many managers are placed in contexts where there are no real delegations, no clear perimeters or measurable objectives: they are called 'managers', but treated as evolved executors, with decisions that remain centralised. Under these conditions, even good professionals end up not making an impact and the end result is a widespread perception of ineffectiveness that reinforces the entrepreneur's belief that 'managers do not work', when in reality it is often the context that does not work.

Could this approach be a limitation that risks isolating Italian companies precisely when markets are at their most complex?

I would say yes. This approach is particularly dangerous today because markets are more complex, interconnected and volatile. Without a true managerial structure, companies risk remaining locked in a defensive dimension, unable to scale, to innovate and to cope with technological and organisational transitions that are now inevitable. The real risk is competitive isolation: companies that are excellent on the product side, but fragile on the organisational and strategic side.

Two thirds of entrepreneurs say that young people 'no longer want to do business'. Is this statement realistic, considering the growth of the start-up movement in Italia?

This is a biased reading that confuses effects with causes. It is true that many young people today show a weaker attachment to traditional work, but it is equally true that we live in the 'society of demands', where rights, flexibility and rewards are often claimed before skills, responsibilities and results have been built up. Herein lies the provocation: a part of the new generation demands a lot and gives little back, at least in the initial phase. It wants autonomy without experience, a role without effort, balance without ever having gone through imbalance. This inevitably creates friction with an industrial system that has grown up on the opposite logic. That said, the startup phenomenon shows that entrepreneurial energy exists, but even on this level the numbers must be read in depth: many new companies are born and die within a few years, often because they lack a true industrial and managerial structure. The startup cannot be the shortcut to avoid confrontation with the complexity of enterprise.

How much does the change in the expectations of the new generations weigh against this scenario, and how much does the inability of SMEs to offer attractive paths of autonomy and vision weigh against it?

Changing expectations weigh heavily, but the inability of companies to adapt weighs more heavily. The most competent young people look for contexts where they can make an impact, take real responsibility and grow. Instead, in many SMEs they find rigid organisations, ambiguous roles and a culture still too closely linked to physical presence and direct control. However, it must also be said that autonomy is not an acquired right, but an achievement: demanding responsibility without demonstrating reliability and ability is one of the great misunderstandings of our time. Companies must evolve, but also young people must accept that growth comes through phases of sacrifice, learning and discipline.

When these two worlds do not meet, the result is a fracture that penalises both.

Many entrepreneurs see divestment as the only way to guarantee a future for the company: what impact can this have on the industrial fabric of Italia?

Divestment is not a bad thing in itself, but when it becomes an obligatory choice it signals a structural problem. Companies that are too dependent on the founder have a lower value and a higher risk of know-how dispersion, especially when this know-how has not been codified in processes and systems. In the medium to long term, this dynamic can contribute to a silent deindustrialisation, not of sudden closures, but of a progressive loss of control, skills and decision-making capacity.

Preparing the company for managerial continuity does not mean giving up the divestment, but coming to it from a position of strength, with a solid and attractive organisation.

If you had to indicate a top priority for SMEs in the next 5-10 years, would it be more urgent to invest in new models of governance and training or in a change of mentality of the entrepreneur-founder?

The first priority remains the second: without this change, governance and training are cosmetic interventions. We need to accept that the model based on direct control and individual heroism is no longer sustainable. Only after this change does it become possible to build modern governance, delegate for real and invest in managerial skills. Finally, digitalisation is not a starting point but a point of arrival: without rethought processes and a rationally designed organisation, technology only risks speeding up what is already not working.