Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession Planning Process: India Knowledge@Wharton

(http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4519)

Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession
Planning Process
Published : August 26, 2010 in India Knowledge@Wharton

At the Tata Steel annual general meeting (AGM) in mid-August,

shareholders' tributes for chairman Ratan Tata were louder than usual. Tata
Sons, the holding company of the Tata Group, had just set up a panel to find
a successor for Ratan Tata, who is the chairman of the group and several of
its larger companies. "Don't leave us," implored one shareholder. "We
cannot lose our Ratan (jewel in Hindi)," said another.
Ratan Tata will still be around at the next AGM; he isn't due to step down
until December 2012. He hopes to have some presence after that -- as
someone "sitting in the audience asking questions," he told audience
members at the AGM. But the question that is being asked today is: Who
will succeed him? This is a single/personal use copy of India
Knowledge@Wharton. For multiple copies,
custom reprints, e-prints, posters or plaques,
Observers agree that filling Tata's shoes is not going to be an easy task. In please contact PARS International:
reprints@parsintl.com P. (212) 221-9595
the early days after he took over from J.R.D. Tata in 1991, he was widely x407.

criticized for daring to take on the satraps, as the independent-minded CEOs

of the larger group companies were then described. There were battles fought in boardrooms and the
business press, but eventually the old guard retired. More recently, there was criticism that the acquisition
of automobile manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) and steelmaker Corus would deluge the group in
debt. In results declared in August 2010, however, both Tata Motors (including JLR) and Tata Steel (with
Corus) have returned to profits. The Tatas are also now the country's most valuable group with a market
capitalization of US$80 billion.
The Race for Succession
The frontrunner in the Tata race appears to be Noel Tata, Ratan Tata's half brother who was recently
promoted to overseeing the group's international operations. Some 65% of the conglomerate's US$70.8
billion revenue (April-March 2008-2009) comes from outside India, so this is a significant responsibility.
Additionally, Noel Tata is the son-in-law of Pallonji Mistry, who owns 18.4% in Tata Sons, which makes
him the single largest individual shareholder (most of the equity is held by charitable trusts).
But others are in the race, too. The Economic Times speculates that the internal candidates include Tata
Sons executive directors Ishaat Hussain and R. Gopalakrishnan; and B. Muthuraman, Ravi Kant and S.
Ramadorai, vice chairmen of Tata Steel, Tata Motors and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), respectively.
The younger group includes the CEOs of TCS (N. Chandrasekaran) and Titan (Bhaskar Bhat). But they
are long shots at best, observers say.
There is also speculation that, given the group's increasing global focus, the choice need not be an Indian.
The Times of India says that the candidates could include Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, former Vodafone head
Arun Sarin and Renault Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn. "The selection process would consider suitable
persons from within the Tata companies, other professionals in India as well as persons overseas with
global experience," says a Tata Sons press release.
Ratan Tata has also clarified that the new chief need not be either a Parsi or a Tata. (The Parsis are a
wealthy business community in India, and the Tata chief has traditionally been a Parsi.) The Parsis are a
shrinking community. Birth rates are very low and women who marry outside the community are
excommunicated. There are now less than 60,000 Parsis left in India, and it is inevitable that the Tata
baton will pass on to a non-Parsi sooner or later.

  All materials copyright of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.                    Page 1 of 5 
Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession Planning Process: India Knowledge@Wharton
(http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4519)

baton will pass on to a non-Parsi sooner or later.

It will have to pass on to a non-Tata, too. The Tatas are a small clan. Apart from Ratan, there is his
80-year-old French stepmother, Simone, who is obviously not in the running for his job. His brother,
Jimmy, is close to 70 and has retired from Tata Power. Aloo Tata (who is by birth a Mistry) won't get
precedence over her husband, Noel. And their three children -- Liya, Maya and Neville -- are still
studying. So, Noel is the only Tata who is eligible.
The composition of the selection panel has some critics speculating that the choice of Noel is pre-decided.
It consists of Tata Sons directors R.K. Krishna Kumar and Cyrus Mistry (who is Noel Tata's
brother-in-law), Tata veteran N.S. Soonawala, group legal advisor Shirin Barucha and independent
member Lord Kumar Bhattacharya of the Warwick Manufacturing Group of the U.K. "There is only one
external member," says Pradeep Mukerjee, founder-director of Confluence Coaching and Consulting.
Mukerjee, who has worked for several years in the HR area with Citigroup in the U.S., says that in the
West, such selection panels have many more external members. "What good is a panel stuffed with
internal members? I wonder what the true purpose is."
Infosys: Looking on the Outside
Mukerjee contrasts the Tata situation with the nominations committee at Infosys, which has just embarked
on the task of finding a successor for chairman and chief mentor N.R. Narayana Murthy, who retires in
August 2011. The Infosys nominations committee consists of Cornell University professor of law Jeffrey
S. Lehman; HDFC Standard Life CEO and managing director Deepak M. Satwalekar; and ICICI Bank
non-executive chairman K.V. Kamath.
"We do not discuss internal processes while they are going on, lest the discussion give rise to misleading
speculation," Lehman told India Knowledge@Wharton. "Let me state simply that the leadership duties of
the board chair are well understood and we are committed to selecting an individual who will carry out
those duties with full professional competence. We do not have any 'litmus tests' that we apply regarding
the individual's background. I am absolutely certain that we will make a decision and we will make a
public announcement with appropriate lead time." (Incidentally,The Economic Times predicts that Kamath
is likely to take over from Murthy.)
These two headline-grabbing selection processes have cast in the shade similar exercises going on in
corporate India. At Larsen & Toubro (L&T), for instance, there is speculation that Ravi Uppal, who has
come in from multinational ABB to head the power business, has already been selected to replace
chairman A.M. Naik when he retires in a couple of years. At family-owned but professionally run groups
like Dabur and Godrej, "facilitators" and committees have been appointed to look at succession issues.
"There is a strong succession plan for more than 150 senior managers across the group," says Godrej
group chairman Adi Godrej. "It covers two aspects -- sudden resignation or demise, as well as for when
the manager retires.... Godrej group companies have very strong boards -- the independent directors are
professionals with expertise in their fields, not industrialist friends of the family." According to
Raveendra Chittoor, assistant professor of strategy at the Hyderabad-based Indian School of Business
(ISB): "Over the past decade, there has been a growing trend of appointing professional CEOs even in
family-owned companies."
Raphael (Raffi) Amit, Wharton professor of entrepreneurship and management, says Ratan Tata's and
Narayana Murthy's desire to find professionals to lead their companies -- not necessarily family members
or insiders -- is in line with the findings of substantial research he has done in this area. "On average,
when these types of succession issues come up, the business is better off finding a professional manager
rather than a family member," he says, citing a May 2006 paper he co-authored, titled "How Do Family
Ownership, Control and Management Affect Firm Value?" (The study was written with Harvard Business
School professor Belen Villalonga, and it was published in the Journal of Financial Economics.)
"While you are inclined to find a family member to lead a particular business or the group as a whole, first
and foremost you want to make sure the longevity and prosperity of the business that you have started --
or was started by the previous generation -- is maintained," Amit says. "Often, a family member is not
available or willing, or not as capable as a professional." What Tata and Murthy are doing in this matter
"is in the best interests of the long term sustainability, longevity and prosperity of the businesses," he

  All materials copyright of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.                    Page 2 of 5 
Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession Planning Process: India Knowledge@Wharton
(http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4519)

adds.
"[There] is no reason to believe India should be different in succession planning," he says, referring to the
findings of his research. However, generally speaking, in Asia, "cultural issues" are perhaps more
prevalent than in the U.S. or Europe, he notes. "The belief may be [that] non-family members cannot be
trusted to the extent family members can be trusted. That is one of the biases for them to appoint family
members, whereas the most appropriate person may not be a family member. Even though rationally
people understand the issues, emotionally people have a hard time thinking that a non-family member can
be trusted to the extent a family member can be trusted. It is not so much an economic or business issue as
it is a cultural issue."
According to a study by global business and strategy consulting firm Bain & Company, attention to
succession planning in Indian companies is woefully inadequate. "Research in 2008 showed that board
members discussed CEO succession at least once a year in more than 60% of the S&P 500 companies,"
says Ashish Singh, Bain India managing director. "In India, we find the picture very different: More than
75% of the respondents in Bain's survey of 44 leading Indian companies said their boards did not discuss
CEO succession planning at all. This gap needs to be addressed if we are to significantly improve
corporate governance."
It is a failure of the board of directors, he continues. "The independent directors can -- and should -- play
a more active role in demanding that succession planning be implemented, given that they have less at
stake in being on the 'right side' of the CEO or the promoter. Boards in India -- with several notable
exceptions -- have a long way to go to play the governance and oversight role that they play in developed
markets. We are long overdue for an accelerated transition to more engaged boards."
The Cons of Traditional Succession Planning
Peter Cappelli, Wharton management professor and director of the school's Center for Human Resources,
notes that the problems extend to U.S. boards. "Most U.S. firms do no succession planning," he says.
Cappelli, who has done a great deal of research on the subject for his 2008 book, Talent on Demand:
Managing Talent in an Uncertain Age, feels that succession planning as traditionally performed doesn't
work very well. "The reason is that it has to anticipate today what the job will require years in advance,"
he says. "And it also has to assume that the person you are picking today will still be of the caliber
required years in advance -- no scandals, no illnesses. If anything changes in the business or with the
people, the plan doesn't work." And today, the world is changing faster than ever before.
Cappelli notes that earlier there were two common methods of choosing a successor: the "relay," where
the person is appointed years in advance, or the "horserace," where several candidates are competing until
the end. The most common method now in the U.S. is the third, where companies get help from a search
firm to consider possible candidates from outside as well.
The Tatas have gone down this road before. In 1981, group company Voltas hired a search firm to find a
CEO. "There was a worldwide search," says P.N. Singh, who was in charge of HR at Voltas when the
exercise took place. "A global agency was employed. There were ads in global media and people were
asked to apply for the job of CEO. Finally, Ramesh Sarin from tobacco-to-hotels major ITC was chosen
as MD." The experiment worked for only a few years. Chairman A.H. Tobaccowala and Sarin fell out. "It
was a question of culture and control," says Singh, who is now chairman of Grid Consultants, which
conducts Blake & Mouton grid seminars. "ITC had a different culture and Tobaccowala had a different
idea of control. He was unwilling to let go. Tobaccowala was an 'entrepreneur' and Sarin was a manager.
So the two should actually have worked well together."
Amit strongly urges "unbundling" ownership, control and management. "You can control and be the
owner, but you don't necessarily have to be the manager," he says. "Data points to the fact that by making
a distinction between ownership and management, you don't lose but gain." What's more, if the business
does well, it helps boost "family harmony and happiness; there will be less conflict in the family. If we
care about the happiness of the family and the prosperity of the business, it is prudent to appoint the most
competent and most capable people to run these businesses."
But in Singh's opinion, however, it is generally a mistake to bring in someone from outside the
organization. "Personally, I think it is a weakness if you have to go out to search for a leader," he says.

  All materials copyright of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.                    Page 3 of 5 
Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession Planning Process: India Knowledge@Wharton
(http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4519)

organization. "Personally, I think it is a weakness if you have to go out to search for a leader," he says.
Insiders Have the Edge
Traditionally, in India and elsewhere, the insider has had the edge. "Outsiders are about change: insiders
are about continuity," says Cappelli. "So when things are going fine, insiders are preferred. When they
are not, outsiders come in." Adds Singh of Bain: "For most companies, an internal candidate makes sense.
Not only do they know the business very well, but they are also completely in tune with the culture,
which is essential. However, in those situations where a transformation is required, or where performance
has been lagging for some time, an outsider may be the right person to shake things up, to bring in new
perspectives, to break some sacrosanct shackles, and to inject additional external talent into different parts
of the organization." Notes S. Raghunath, professor of corporate strategy and policy at the Indian Institute
of Management Bangalore (IIMB): "The outsider can make a huge difference when a company needs
radical change. The insider may not see how much needs to be changed. The insider would be more
focused on implementation issues." According to Amit, "External candidates have a lot of cost associated
with them. They may not know the company and the industry, and people may not be happy with the way
an external candidate leads the company; people don't like change."
Former Citibanker Mukerjee lists the reasons why companies go outside to find a CEO:
Change of strategy, business models or nature of business that require a significant change
from the way the organization ran earlier;
No one successor clearly identified;
Identified successor not ready;
As part of good governance, looking for the best person rather than only from within; and
For enhancing the image of the organization by hiring a well-known CEO from outside.
There is another reason that some observers cite: to keep talent from leaving the company. If three people
are in the running for the CEOs job, two would probably quit when the third is appointed. Getting an
outsider -- which is often regarded as a temporary arrangement -- postpones the fight and flight to another
day; it keeps the hopes of the prospective CEOs alive.
Downside of Insiders
The downside of appointing an internal CEO can perhaps be seen at ICICI Bank. After it was publicly
made known that Chanda Kochhar would be the next managing director and CEO, there has been a
hemorrhaging at the top. "No organization can afford to lose so much top talent in so short a time," says
Mukerjee. "But it does depend on your bench strength." Adds Singh of Grid Consultants: "The leadership
pipeline has to be full."
Bench strength doesn't just happen; it has to be created. Says Chittoor of ISB: "In well-managed
companies, there is a focus on developing a long pipeline of talent. In such companies, managers are
groomed for senior management positions right from the time they join. Just as there are other forms of
capital, I believe companies also possess what I call 'talent capital.' The talent capital of the company is
determined on the depth of management talent it possesses, though many companies do not pay attention
to this. In companies that are well endowed with talent capital, there are multiple candidates-in-waiting
for each senior management position, including that of the CEO. CEO succession planning in such cases
boils down to selecting the best candidate among those already identified and groomed for the job."
Amit doesn't feel naming an insider as a successor should necessarily lead to the departure of those who
are not selected. In fact, he points to "a retention advantage" in communicating that internal candidates
are being considered. "It's a fantastic way to retain talent by communicating that there is the chance for
you to be the CEO," he says of a well-orchestrated succession process.
What about those who don't make it? K. Ramkumar, executive director ICICI who looks after HR, says
that people put two and two together and make 10; it is just coincidence that so many top-level people left
ICICI in the months after Kochhar took charge. "Of the list [who quit ICICI Bank], there is only one
person who left because she was in the reckoning with Chanda Kochhar for the top job," he notes.
"Irrespective of who was selected, the others would have left. This happens time and again in all global

  All materials copyright of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.                    Page 4 of 5 
Tata Group, Infosys and Others: The 'Painful' but Necessary Succession Planning Process: India Knowledge@Wharton
(http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/india/article.cfm?articleid=4519)

organizations. It is naive and idealistic to expect anything else. The others were talented, but some had
interests which ICICI could not have met given its institutional charter, a few had misplaced notions and
thought themselves bigger than the organization. They were asked to move on -- by former CEO Kamath,
and not Chanda Kochhar. They had no place in the way ICICI Bank was chalking out its future strategy."
Ramkumar has his own take on the broader issue of insider vs. outsider. "There comes a time when every
organization has to fearlessly de-clutter its leadership and put in place a team which is relevant for the
future," he says. "Jack Welch, Paul Polman, Ratan Tata and Kamath, to name a few, have shown the way
to do it. Purging and de-cluttering leadership is an important part of succession management and enabling
the organization for the future. The key question here is: Does the organization have sufficient leadership
depth and bench? If it is like GE, Unilever, Tata and ICICI, then it is possible to carry out this
strategy. Look at Unilever. In 2008, the company appointed Paul Polman -- from Nestle but originally
from archrival Procter & Gamble -- as CEO. He brought in a new chief financial officer -- Jean-Marc
Huet. This is a clear case of an outsider taking over and creating enormous disruption in the system. If one
examines the performance of Unilever over the past few years, the company clearly required that
disruption. This is positive disruption.
"When Ratan Tata took over the Tata Group, he was an insider. In the early days, he was pilloried for
taking on the satraps. In the first five years, he created a huge amount of disruption. It was needed.
Similarly, Jack Welch spent his early years at GE cleaning out the cobwebs. Kamath at ICICI Bank was
an insider-outsider. [Kamath had joined ICICI -- then the Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of
India, a development financial institution -- straight out of business school in 1971. He left in 1988 to join
the Asian Development Bank. He was wooed back to ICICI as managing director and CEO in 1996.]
Kamath also was a disruptive influence. He brought in a focus on technology and innovation." He
continues: "The point I am trying to make is that the debate should not be about insider vs. outsider. What
is important is the context. What matters are the time and the environment. Was Gandhiji an insider,
outsider or insider-outsider? Does it matter? If Gandhiji had returned to India 20 years earlier -- when the
political landscape was dominated by strong-willed people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak -- he would never
have been the leader of the freedom movement."
Not Just How, but When
Do Tata and Infosys have their timing right? Says Cappelli: "I'm not a big fan of picking a successor way
in advance. I think the better approach is to develop candidates, several of whom could step in. Then very
near retirement -- if that's the change event -- the successor gets named in time for people to get
comfortable. But the downside of naming a successor is that if it turns out that things change and that
person is not appointed, then their career is really damaged."

Singh of Bain agrees that succession planning is a process, not an event. "The ideal succession planning is
evergreen," he says. The formal announcement of a successor depends on factors such as size and scale of
the business. For a group of Tatas' scale and diversity, a long transition is required. For most companies, a
six- to 12-month overlap and transition would be appropriate. Announcing anything earlier than this
simply invites trouble for both the incumbent and the designee and may lead to the unintended and costly
departure of one or both, besides resulting in dysfunctional organizational behavior."
In practice, though, there are often disasters. Why? Says Raghunath of IIMB: "Failure of succession
planning has its roots in the mindset that all termination is an unpleasant act -- if not death -- and the ritual
leading up to it is painful."

This is a single/personal use copy of India Knowledge@Wharton. For multiple copies, custom reprints, e-prints, posters or plaques, please
contact PARS International: reprints@parsintl.com P. (212) 221-9595 x407.

  All materials copyright of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.                    Page 5 of 5