It might be politically correct to argue that women make better, more inclusive, and more incisive managers than men, especially for the ESG-driven investors who demand they are better represented on boards. In truth, there is not much evidence for that. They can be brilliant or terrible, kind or bullying, just as much as male chief executives. It depends on the individual. That said, women are far better at taking control of the family business than men are. Here’s why.

First, they don’t come under the same kind of pressure to take over. Almost by definition, the greatest entrepreneurs are also driven, unreasonable, and demanding. It is all part of the personality package that goes with founding a major company. They want to create a dynasty for much the same reason they wanted their business to take over the world. 

The result? Sons who would really rather be doing something else, and would be better qualified for it, find themselves bullied into the job by overbearing fathers. When they are put in charge, they are out of their depth. But the same pressures are very rarely applied to daughters. When they take on the family business, it is typically because they really want to, and have the skills to make it work. They are there on merit, as much as inheritance, and that makes a huge difference.

Next, there isn’t the same psychological drive to out-perform the father, with bigger deals, and more aggressive takeovers. The car crashes happen when sons inherit, then try to prove they are worthy of the legacy with a reckless round of expansion. In the 1980s, for example, Edgar Bronfman moved his family’s Seagram empire out of drinks and chemicals and into the movie business with catastrophic results. 

By contrast, daughters are typically content to steadily grow the business, and stick to the industry it already dominates. The results are always far better.

Finally, daughters often take a less hands-on role. Many of them are content to helm the business, while bringing in managers to do the day-to-day work. They are more likely to know their limits, less tempted to rip up the established playbook, and happier to listen to outside advice. A family chairperson is more likely to keep the empire intact than a family chief executive, and daughters are more likely to slot into that role.

Of course, there are exceptions. Shari Redstone famously feuded with her father, Sumner, over the media conglomerate Viacom, although the company just about survived. But the L’Oreal cosmetics empire hardly suffered after Liliane Bettencourt took control from her father. And Walmart has barely stumbled since Alice Walton inherited a dominant stake in the retail chain that her father, Sam, created.

Of course, Amancio Ortega is going to be a very hard act to follow. He is one of the most successful tycoons of the last 50 years. But if anyone can do it, Marta probably can – and shareholders are making a mistake if they think she is going to crash the business.