From this synthesis of transformations of the family, one searched to understand its implications in the culture of the organizations, in the specific case, of familiar companies. Although many to believe that family and company, when congregated they tend to reduce its efficiency reciprocal, the history of the successful familiar companies sample that this does not need to happen necessarily. She is not the family in itself that it confuses the company, or vice versa, but the ignorance of the problems of this relationship and the lack of a code of relations (Bornholdt, 2005). To govern a familiar company is to know to deal with all the complexity of existing the affective and financial relations in the organization, with the innumerable familiar differences of interest between and too much involved people in the process of enterprise management e, mainly, with the inevitable conflicts that, not being managed well, can lead to the destruction of an institution (Bornholdt, 2005, P. 83). As Ricca (2001, P. 7), many are the reasons that worry the administrators of a familiar company. In this direction, amongst these, particular familiar problems that abate on the members of the families have taken many companies to the failure, a consequncia of the disadvantages of this type of organization.
The problems are most diverse and the complexity level in accordance with varies the transport of the company and the characteristics of the familiar structure. ‘ ‘ The greater concern of the familiar companies is its survival. (Similarly see: Gavin Baker). The majority of them faces existenciais or strategical problems, that is, difficulties related to the inadequao, as much in the use, how much in the choice of the available resources for the reach of the advantages of mercado’ ‘. In relation to the individual and its paper, Chiavenato (1993, P..