Surgical Strike at Tata Group

Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 Surgical Strike at Tata Group Surbhi Bedi*, Dr. Snadeep Vij** ABSTRACT The Tata Group - an Indian multinational, salt-to-software conglomerate, dominated the Indian corporate world for over 149 years and was present in 100 countries across 6 continents. In 2016, CEO Cyrus Mistry was abruptly removed from his position after he had served the company for a period of four years. The turnover of Tata group during Mistry’s tenure dropped and debt increased. He was removed citing the performance of the company as an issue. This episode was no less than a surgical strike at India’s largest multinational conglomerate. However, it raised the questions of succession planning and corporate governance at the group. This paper highlights the succession planning undertaken by the group while passing on the reigns from JRD Tata to Ratan Tata and then from Ratan Tata to Cyrus Mistry. The paper concludes with observations regarding succession planning and corporate governance in the Indian context, taking cues from the Tata case. Key Words: Succession Planning, Corporate Governance, Tata Group JEL CLASSIFICATION: G34, M14, O16 INTRODUCTION: TATA GROUP: A BRIEF HISTORY The Tata group of companies was owned by the Tata Trust. Tata Sons was the holding company for all the companies in the group. Tata Sons board chairman also held the position of chairman in other Tata group companies. As the promoter of Tata group of companies such as Tata Steel and Tata Motors, Tata Sons had the power to decide about the capital allocation for the group companies. i Tata’s entered the business in 1868 with a spirit of nationalism which was clear from their efforts to take the country on a path towards industrialization. Later, they also proved themselves to be pioneers, when India’s first software company, Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) was founded in 1968, when India’s first indigenously developed car, the Indica was made by Tata Motors, in 1998 and also by making the world’s most affordable car, the Tata Nano. ii The Tata group managed more than hundred companies in a variety of industries like ICT, engineering goods, services, energy, consumer products, automobiles, and chemicals. The group operated in more than hundred companies across six continents and exported its products/services to more than 150 countries. The total revenue of the group was $100.39 billion in 2016-17. Tata companies employed over 695,000 people worldwide. The name ‘Tata’ gained respect in India for more than 149 years for its cohesion with its values and business ethics. All of the group companies operated independently. Every company had its own board of directors and shareholders, to whom it was answerable. 29 companies of Tata’s were publicly listed and they had a combined market capitalization of about $130.13 billion (as on March 31, 2017). Some of the most contributing Tata companies were Tata Steel, Tata Motors, TCS, Tata Power, Tata Chemicals, Tata Global Beverages, Tata Teleservices, Titan, Tata Communications and Indian Hotels. iii ________________________________________________ * Junior Research Fellow (JRF), Department of Commerce and Business Management, DAV University, Jalandhar ** Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and Business Management, DAV University, Jalandhar 29 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 CEO’S AT TATA GROUP Tata Group- an Indian multinational conglomerate, was founded by Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata in 1868.ivAfter Jamsetji’s death, in Germany in 1904, the chairmanship of the Tata group was passed to his elder son, Sir Dorabji Tata.v Dorabji, in 1932 was succeeded as by Sir Nowroji Saklatwala.Following Saklatwala’s demise in 1938, JRD Tata at the age of 34 was appointed as the chairman of the group. Ratan Tata took over as chairman from JRD in 1991 and led the group towards the new era of liberalization, privatization, and globalization. At the age of 75, Ratan retired from the chairmanship and passed the reigns to Cyrus Mistry in 2012. Mistry, owing to many controversies, was removed from the chairmanship in 2016 by the Tata Trust and Natarajan Chandrasekaran became the new chairman of the group (Refer Exhibit 1). In its history of 149 years, the Tata Group had six chairmen and all of them belonged to Parsi community. The first non-Tata to become chairman of the group was Saklatwala, who remained in power from 1932 to 1938. Saklatwala was the son of Jamsetji’s sister Virbaijiwhich still makes him a family member. vi Mistry was the second non-Tata chairman from 2012 to 2016. Mistry’s sister, Aloo Mistry, was married to the halfbrother of Ratan Tata- Noel Tata.vii PASSING THE REIGNS FROM JRD TATA TO RATAN TATA JRD led the group for the 53 years with wisdom, foresight and a rare grace that touched everyone he met. During more than five decade tenure of JRD Tata, the group diversified and expanded into new many unrelated businesses e.g. Tata Chemicals (1939), Tata Motors (1945) and Tata Industries (1945), Voltas (1954), Tata Tea (1962), TCS (1968) and Titan Industries (1984).viii The beginning of the 1990’s ushered in plenty of change in Indian business. Economic reforms opened up many sectors, signaling increased competition and the arrival of foreign companies. Ratan took over as chairman in 1991 when India was undergoing turbulent business environment and the economy was being liberalized, privatized and globalised. After the death of JRD Tata in 1993, the Tata group saw a paradigm shift in policies under the leadership of Ratan Tata. Tata group made many acquisitions outside India and became a major player in the international market. The first big acquisition was that of Tetley Tea, one of Britain’s leading tea brands, by Tata Tea (now Tata Beverages) in 2000. Later, the acquisitions of steelmaker Corus Group plc (Corus) by Tata Steel in 2007 was a moment of great promise for India’s surging steel industry. Acquisition of Jaguar Land Rover by Tata Motors in 2008 from Ford Motors were other high-profile acquisitions done by the Tata Group. Since 2005, there had been a steady stream of acquisitions in Europe, Asia, and North Americaix (also refer http://www.nivansys.com/htm/Group_MnA_YearWise.htm ). Appointment of Ratan as group’s CEO took everyone to surprise because there were others in the league to the Tata crown. JRD said that others had no less integrity than Ratan but he saw his own image in Ratan. The journey was not at all easy for Ratan. He joined the family business in 1962 and worked at Tata Steel’s shop floor at Jamshedpur, just like one of several thousand employees. In fact, he was considered to be jinxed because the endeavors he took up before taking up the chairmanship never turned out to be fruitful. He could not turn around group companies, NELCO and Empress Mills, which he was expected to do. With the help of JRD, he drew a strategic plan for the group in 1983 which attracted only cobwebs because some of the heads of the companies, who had become extremely powerful and influential due to the freedom to operate under the benevolent leadership of JRD, blatantly ignored his plan and paid it just lip service. In 1988, he was appointed as the chairman of Telco. This success only brought him at the center of a prolonged labor dispute, which was one of the worst industrial relations experiences that Ratan had to deal with. And when Ratan took over as chairman of Tata Group in 1991, he was not at all welcomed by the heads of the other group companies. Individual company heads were larger-than-life personalities in their own right and had ruled their respective companies for decades. Some of them were Russi Mody at Tata Steel, Darbari Seth at Tata Chemicals, Ajit Kerkar at Indian Hotels, and Nani Palkhivala at ACC. Many believed that they were more experienced and deserving to head the group than Ratan. Palkhivala's political views and Mody's clashes within the group worked against them and JRD decided to bequeath the legacy to Ratan. x It was next to impossible for Ratan to work with the heads of the other group companies. He then devised his own ways to deal with them. Ratan enacted the retirement age rule whereby all business heads and directors 30 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 will have to retire at the age of 60. This made him deal with Seth and Kerkar who eventually retired and left the company. Palkhivala's departure was hastened due to his ill-health. But still Ratan’s crown remained shaky for several years. There were opinions in 1997 that Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry, who was the single largest shareholder in Tata Sons with 18 % stake, would drive out Ratan and take over the command of the group.xi After taking over as chairman, Ratan streamlined and consolidated the group companies for better productivity and synergies. He swiftly exited from pharma, textiles, and cement business. Even after these divestments, the company was a diversified, salt-to-software group, but now there was a method to the business expansion.xii The group was highly decentralized, and member companies had great autonomy in terms of strategy and operations. But the values and ethos of the group had always been the main driving force behind the diverse business strategies of group companies which kept them unified. xiii By 1998, Ratan made a common group logo and that logo was owned by Tata Sons.xivSince then, the group companies had to pay a royalty to Tata Sons to use its brand name. xv An analyst was of the view that the culture that Ratan had created will stay on with the group as a legacy. He institutionalized the processes. Be it the area of mergers and acquisitions, engineering or cars or anything else, he always worked with a forward-looking strategy of putting new competency in the old companies. The reputation of the group and its values and ethics had always been the guiding light for Ratan while making decisions.xvi PASSING THE REIGNS FROM RATAN TATA TO CYRUS MISTRY In 2002, when Ratan was to retire at 65, the Tata Sons board appointed him as non-executive chairman, allowing him to stay with the group for another five years. Three years later, the board upped the retirement age of non-executive directors to 75, thus increasing his connection with the group by 5 more years. These decisions were duly supported by the board as well as shareholders asking Ratan to stay with the company saying that "We can't lose our ratan (jewel)."xviiThe message was clear: Ratan was indispensable. There were hardly any red marks in the group’s financial report card during his tenure of 21 years with the group. Revenue grew 46 times to Rs. 4.75 lakh crores (Rs. 4.75 trillion) in 2011-12 and the increase in net profit was even more remarkable, climbing 51 times to over Rs. 33,500 crores (Rs. 335 billion). Investors appreciated the returns they got and the group's market capitalization grew 33 times during the Ratan’s tenure.xviii Ratan’s retirement was due in 2012. Ratan wanted his successor to be a "younger" leader, who could hold fast to the Tata values, could demonstrate managerial abilities and could have the vision to run the group. He clarified that his successor need not be a Tata, Parsi, or even an Indian but should be the right person.xix The actual selection process of a successor was not publically disclosed, but it was evident that it would be a scientific process. A five-member selection committee was formed. The candidates were assessed on the basis of their leadership qualities, management skills, operational performance and other criteria. The top scorer on these parameters would secure the job.xx And finally, on November 23, 2011, selection of Cyrus Mistry as Ratan’s successor surprised everyone. Mistry was appointed as deputy chairman, to be trained by Ratan for a year before the latter’s retirement in December 2012. He was selected after a 15-month search led by the selection committee. Mistry was on the board of Tata Sons since 2006 and was himself a member of the search and selection committee that was set up in 2010 to choose Ratan’s successor. xxi Ratan on Mistry’s appointment said, “I have been impressed with the quality and caliber of his participation [on the board], his astute observations and his humility….He is intelligent and qualified to take on the responsibility being offered and I will be committed to working with him over the next year to give him the exposure, the involvement, and the operating experience to equip him to undertake the full responsibility of the group on my retirement.”xxii Mistry, then 43, who was not even in the race for the chairmanship was declared to be the next CEO of Tata Group. The group had several experienced outsiders in the league for the chairman including Indra Nooyi – the head of PepsiCo and Arun Sarin – CEO of Vodafone, but finally considered an insider.xxiiiMistry was an Irish businessman of Indian origin who was appointed as the sixth chairman to head the Tata’s. Mistry was the younger son of Pallonji Mistry who had an 18.4 percent stake in Tata Sons. xxiv 31 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 MISTRY’S REMOVAL The next surprise by the group was the abrupt removal of Mistry from the position of CEO of the group on 24th October 2016.When Mistry was picked as the chairman of the group it was seen to be a victory for the youth. “Be your own man”, was Ratan’s words of wisdom to his 43 years old successor. But soon the same youth was perceived as a rude and arrogant fellow who was out to destroy the core values that the group had always been proud of for last 149 years. xxv The rift between Ratan and Mistry started becoming evident when Mistry removed Indian Hotels managing director Raymond Bickson in 2014. Bickson was recognized as being close to Ratan. He was replaced with Rakesh Sarna, who served Hyatt as its Vice President before joining Indian Hotels. Later, Mistry did not remove Sarna despite many complaints against him. It put a question mark on Mistry's ability to identify talent.xxvi Unlike previous CEOs he did not hire inspirational leaders. After the retirement of Ishaat Hussain, the chief financial officer (CFO) of the group, the post remained vacant for about 3 years which was strange enough.xxvii The turnover of the group dropped to $103 billion in 2015-2016 from $108 billion the previous year. Net debt rose to $24.5 billion in March 2016 from $23.4 billion a year ago. Out of numerous businesses of the group, only two -Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Jaguar Land Rover - were performing steadily.xxviii Many other of its group companies were struggling. The domestic automobile business, despite accounting for roughly half of India’s trucks business, had long been under strain. Tata Steel which was once the brightest star in the Tata constellation faced a sharp downfall since 2012.The $12.5 billion acquisition of Anglo-Dutch competitor Corus in 2007, had been identified by analysts as being the main reason for the downfall of Tata Steel. The decision of Mistry to shut down operations of Tata Steel Europe, after much debt and continual losses made the group unhappy because it was Tata’s one of the many proud acquisitions. Mistry's approach of divesting from non-profitable businesses and focusing on the growing and improving the profitable ones was in direct contrast to Ratan’s approach. While Ratan wanted to build a global empire by acquiring companies across the globe and turning around the unprofitable ones, Mistry, stressed on divesting from the unprofitable businesses. He aggressively pursued the disposal of non-profitable businesses. Tata group expected Mistry to turnaround some of the group companies like Nano and Corus which Misty could not agree to do.xxix Ratan criticized the way Mistry handled the separation of Tata and Japan’s Docomo, where in June 2016, Docomo moved to court over an exit clause in the deal and secured a $1.2 billion arbitration award. Some of the consumption-linked businesses such as Titan, Tata Global Beverages, Indian Hotels, Trent, and Rallis India were doing slightly better (Refer Exhibit 2), but when looked at from the perspective of their collective operating profit, they had grown only at 4% CAGR in the past five years. In the financial year 2016, nine of the 27 listed companies in the group reported losses and the earnings of seven companies declined. The only bright stars in the constellation were Tata Power and Tata Chemicals, which reported strong earnings growth in the financial year 2016.xxx Mistry was keener to build new businesses. He entered into e-commerce, defense and infrastructure rather than consolidating existing businesses. He emphasized 'Profitability' with equal vigor on all group companies, despite the diverse nature of the businesses. Mistry marketed his three years of achievements in direct comparison to previous years of Tata. xxxi Tata Trust expressed its displeasure for not receiving enough dividends on their shares. The compound annual growth rate of dividends received during the Mistry years was 18.1%, a slowdown from the 21% growth in the four preceding years when Ratan was the chairman.xxxii The creation of the Group Executive Council (GEC) by Mistry was perceived to be a threat and a parallel power center by many in the group. Many members of the GEC did not really have real time experience of managing a business. The key advisors in the group, including Madhu Kannan, NS Rajan, Nirmalya Kumar, were also asked to exit the group along with Mistry. The main bone of contention Mistry and Ratan was particularly with regard to business ethics, values, vision and the direction that the group was headed in. Tata’s claimed that Mistry responded in a very vague and non-specific manner when asked to spell out his vision, five-year plan, etc.xxxiiiWhile others were of the view that Mistry was good enough in taking the business ahead but could not take people along with him in the process.xxxiv 32 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 Shares of group companies declined, a day after Mistry was shown doors by the group. (Refer Exhibit 3).xxxv MISTRY’S RESPONSE Mistry clarified that The Group Executive Council (GEC) made by him was not a “super-board” as perceived by Ratan but it was made to help the group companies who desired their assistance on matters such as, HR, corporate affairs, brand protection, ethics etc. xxxvi Kumar who was sacked along with Mistry, and was a member of GEC, defended Mistry by refuting the charge against him of not sharing his strategy with the Tata Group. Kumar claimed that Mistry presented the strategy document to the board of Tata Sons on three occasions: June 2015, December 2015 and June 2016.xxxviiMistry further clarified that he never marketed his achievements or work. He never gave any interviews to the press but instead, focused on institution building.xxxviii Mistry defended his tenure by saying that he divested only from that business which continued to obtain negative returns and there was no scope for a turnaround. And the divestment proceeds were used to repay the debt and infuse liquidity in the company.xxxixHe further questioned the decisions of Ratan of entering into the aviation sector, his aggressive bidding for Tata Power’s Mundra power project and also his decision to continue with the Nano car. He claimed that he couldn’t function freely because of Ratan’s continuous interference and the special powers that Tata Trust had with them and pointed out corporate governance issues at the company.xl Tata Trusts, which consisted of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Sir Ratan Tata Trust and some other trusts which were endowed by the members of the Tata family, owned two-thirds of Tata Sons, and had special rights in the holding company of the conglomerate, especially in the matters of the appointment and removal of chairman, according to the group’s articles of association. These trusts controlled 66 percent of the shares of Tata Sons, and they support a variety of causes, institutions, and individuals. This special power was provided to the Trust just days before Mistry took the top job as chairman, whereby a majority of the directors nominated by the Trusts had to approve the appointment and removal of chairman, with affirmative vote. xli Because of these special powers with the Trust, two members of the nomination and remuneration committee of the board, who had earlier appreciated Mistry’s performance, voted for his removal. xlii Mistry, in a letter written to shareholders, claimed that according to group’s articles of association, a selection committee must be constituted for removal and replacement of the chairman, which was not done in case of his removal. Just two months before his removal, three new directors were inducted into the Tata Sons Board. Two of them were appointed at the request of Ratan in his capacity as a shareholder of Tata Sons. Mistry claimed that his team prepared an orientation programme for these new directors which was scheduled for November 2, 2016, and November 15, 2016. But even before they could be oriented within the company, they voted their judgment against Mistry’s four-year term at the company. Mistry further claimed that the Nomination and Remuneration Committee of the group lauded his performance as CEO on June 28, 2016 and proposed a hike in his remuneration. xliii Mistry in his letter to the shareholders blamed the trustees to be taking decisions for their personal benefits. Mistry further asked that the decisions of trustees must also be under regular check so as to maintain proper governance standards at the company. Mistry also questioned the special notice issued by the board to remove him as director from the board of group companies issued pursuant his removal as chairman. He claimed that the special notice did not give even a hint about the reason for his removal. The special notice mentioned “a combination of several factors” as the reason for his removal, but no specific reason was actually referred to.xliv Nusli Wadia, who was an independent director at the group supported Mistry. But few months after Mistry’s removal Wadia was also removed from his position at the extraordinary general meeting called by the group. Where shareholders supported Wadia’s removal, others in the industry questioned this move by the group. Another shareholder was of the view that Wadia was “being crushed for expressing his opinions” and identified Wadia’s removal as “black day for corporate governance.”xlv 33 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 THE WAY FORWARD Mistry’s removal from the position of chairman of Tata Sons and from the position of director of the group companies was followed by the appointment of Ratan as interim CEO of the group. Ratan, then 79, constituted a selection committee to choose Mistry’s successor within four months. And finally ended up selecting Natarajan Chandrasekaran1as the chairman within 3 months of Mistry’s ouster. This was unlike the previous time, when the selection committee took about 18 months to select Mistry. Chandrasekaran happened to be the first non-Parsi, third non-Tata and seventh chairman to head the group. When Ratan was asked about the reason for Mistry’s removal, he replied that “the answer will probably go with me to my grave.” This statement of Ratan gives an impression as if there was a truth which only he was aware of and was not ready to share. Moreover, it also brought to light the free will and power of Ratan within the group to do as per his will without explaining things to anyone. xlvi It is now to be seen whether Chandrasekaran takes the group towards a better future or stucks in another boardroom battle. CONCLUSION Succession planning is extremely important. Fayol (1916) suggested that organizations should ensure the stability of the tenure of personnel. Otherwise, key positions in the organizations will get filled up by illprepared people. The continued survival of the firms depends upon having the right people in the right places the right times. Succession planning and management are needed to encourage diversity and multiculturalism in organizations and to avoid homo-social reproduction by managers (Rothwell, 2010). This case highlights the flaws in the succession planning at Tata group. It also highlights the need for carefully identifying and appointing leaders who understand and accept the basic corporate values and philosophies of the company. The incumbent leader should have sufficient awareness about the work-culture of the company, should be provided sufficient transition period to realign the business as per his/her own strategy, without any interference. The succession plans of the organization should detail out the route it should take in the event of anticipated or unanticipated leadership vacancy. This boardroom battle at Tata group was the biggest corporate spat of 2016 and provides a classic example of management clashes over strategy, performance, leadership style and corporate structure. The case also throws light on some of very important corporate governance issues e.g. excessive interference by majority shareholders/promoter group, majority-minority shareholder imbalance, existence of a ‘weak’ board, governance issues in public trusts which indirectly control many of the companies. 1 Chandrasekaran started his journey with Tata group in 1987 as a software programmer at TCS. In 2007, he was given a role on the TCS board as the chief operating officer (COO) of the company. As COO, he drove TCS’s acquisition strategy. Two years later, in October 2009, he was promoted as CEO and managing director. He became one of the youngest CEOs in the group to hold that position at the age of 46. Under Chandrasekaran’s leadership, company’s revenues grew at about 24% annually and its market capitalization stood at Rs. 4.6 trillion. 34 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 Exhibit 1: CEO’s at Tata Group and their Major Work CEO Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata Tenure 1868-1904 Major Work He helped pave the path to industrialization in India by seeding pioneering businesses in sectors such as steel, energy, textiles, and hospitality. Sir Dorab Tata 1904-1932 He was the force behind the setting up, in 1907, of the Tata Iron and Steel Company. xlvii He consolidated the group’s businesses while also getting in new areas, notably insurance and the production of soaps, detergents and cooking oil. Sir Nowroji Saklatwala 1932-1938 He remained at the position of chairman for a very limited time owing to his ill health and continued with the work of consolidation started by Sir Dorab Tata. JRD Tata 1938-1991 Under his leadership, Tata group expanded regularly into new spheres of business. The more prominent of these ventures were Tata Chemicals (1939), Tata Motors and Tata Industries (both 1945), Voltas (1954), Tata Tea [(1962) now known as Tata Global Beverages], Tata Consultancy Services (1968) and Titan Industries (1984). Ratan Tata 1991-2012 He was instrumental in the acquisition of Tetley, Jaguar Land Rover and Corus, which turned Tata from a major India-Centric company to a global brand name. The success of the company under his leadership took the company to the New York Stock Exchange. He was also a leading philanthropist and more than half of his share in the group is invested in charitable trusts. Through his pioneering ideas and positive outlook, he continues to serve as a guiding force for his conglomerate even after retirement.xlviii Cyrus Mistry 2012-2016 He attracted many controversies and was sacked by the company following his tenure of four years as chairman citing non-performance of the group companies as thereas on. Natarajan Chandrasekaran 2016He was the youngest CEO of one of the best present performing Tata group companies, TCS. Source: Our heritage. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, http://www.tata.com/htm/heritage/HeritageOption1.html#2Page/4 35 from Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 Exhibit 2: Performance under the Leadership of Mistry Source: Which Tata Company has done the best under Cyrus Mistry? (2016, September 15).Equity Master. Retrieved November 4, 2017, from https://www.equitymaster.com/5minWrapUp/charts/index.asp?date=09/15/2016&story=1&title=WhichTata-Company-has-done-the-best-under-Cyrus-Mistry Exhibit 3: Decline in shares of Tata Group Companies after Mistry’s Ouster Tata Steel Ltd Tata Consultancy Services Ltd Tata Global Beverages Ltd Tata Power Co. Ltd -2.51% -1.2% -2.5% -1.5% Tata Motors Ltd Automobile Corp. of Goa Ltd Tata Coffee Ltd Indian Hotels Co. Ltd Tata Investment Corp. Ltd Tata Sponge Iron Ltd -1.1% -1.35% -2.63% -3.16% -1.52% -3.04% NELCO Ltd Oriental Hotels Ltd Tata Chemicals Ltd TRF Ltd Tata Global Beverages Ltd Tinplate Co. of India Ltd -2.95% -1.62% -2.09% -1.35% -2.47% -2.79% Titan Co. Ltd -1.19% Tata Communications Ltd -2.26% Tata Elxsi Ltd -1.4% Tata Metaliks Ltd -4.97% Source: Sonavane, R. (2016, October 25). Accessed November 2, 2017, Tata companies’ shares fall after Cyrus Mistry ouster, Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from 36 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 http://www.livemint.com/Money/YE6YP7Tm4KDDPI0yZ1zMIN/Tata-Group-companies-shares-fall-after-CyrusMistrys-ouste.html Endnotes i Krishnan, R. (2016, October 27). Cyrus Mistry vs Ratan Tata: A guide to the key issues involved. Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Companies/0F1R1KoI1wugK6jq9r1ZFK/The-TataMistry-spat-All-you-need-to-know.html. ii Knowledge Management Practices in Tata Group. (n.d). Shodhganga. Retrieved 28 October 2017, from http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/170430/11/11_chapter_2.pdf. iii Tata group profile. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, from http://www.tata.com/aboutus/sub_index/Leadership-withtrust. iv The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#1. v Our heritage. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, fromhttp://www.tata.com/htm/heritage/HeritageOption1.html#2Page/4. vi The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#12. vii HT Correspondent. (2016, October 25). Cyrus Mistry, brought in young as Tata Group chief and gone soon, Hindustan Times. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/cyrus-mistry-the-man-behind-the-6th-chairman-ofthe-tata-group/story-EEtsVIgRlm32KmHMnqOhBK.html. viii Our heritage. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, from http://www.tata.com/htm/heritage/HeritageOption1.html#3Page. ix Our heritage. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, fromhttp://www.tata.com/htm/heritage/HeritageOption1.html#4Page. x The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#5. xi The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#6. xii Idib. xiii Witzel, M. (2010, December 30). Case study: Tata. The Financial Times. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://www.tata.com/article/inside/a4nE!$$$!ZOfHT0=/TLYVr3YPkMU=Case. xiv The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#6. xv Representation to Stakeholders from the desk of Cyrus Mistry. (2016, December 5). Cyrus for Governance, Retrieved November 4, 2017, from http://cyrusforgovernance.com/pdf/stakeholders/Indian-Hotels-Company-Limited-Stakeholders.pdf. xvi The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#7. xvii The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm. xviii Why Ratan Tata remains the king of India's corporate world.(2015, January 21).Rediff. Retrieved 30 October 2017, from http://www.rediff.com/business/special/special-why-ratn-tata-remains-the-king-of-indias-corporate-world/20150121.htm. xix The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#11. xx The amazing story of how Ratan Tata built an empire. (2010, October 21). Rediff. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/oct/20/slide-show-1-amazing-story-of-how-ratan-tata-built-an-empire.htm#13. xxi Mistry was Tata favourite, a unanimous choice in 2011. (2016, October 24). The Hindu. Retrieved 29 October 2017, from 2016 http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/Mistry-was-Tata-favourite-unanimous-choice-in-2011/article16081482.ece. xxii Idib. xxiii HT Correspondent. (2016, October 25). Cyrus Mistry, brought in young as Tata Group chief and gone soon, Hindustan Times. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/cyrus-mistry-the-man-behind-the-6th-chairman-ofthe-tata-group/story-EEtsVIgRlm32KmHMnqOhBK.html. xxiv Idib. xxv Kalesh, B., Vijayraghavan, K., & Barman, A. (2016, October 25). Behind the scenes: What led to Cyrus Mistry ouster. The Times of India. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Behind-the-scenes-What-ledto-Cyrus-Mistry-ouster/articleshow/55042818.cms. xxvi Idib. xxvii Idib. xxviii BI India Bureau. (2016, October 24). Why did Tata Sons remove Cyrus Mistry as the Chairman? Business Insider. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from http://www.businessinsider.in/Why-did-Tata-Sons-remove-Cyrus-Mistry-as-theChairman/articleshow/55032613.cms. xxix Idib. xxx Idib. xxxi John, N. (2016, October 27). 9 possible reasons behind the removal of Cyrus Mistry, Business Today. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from http://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/9-possible-reasons-behind-the-removal-of-cyrus-mistry/story/238901.html. xxxii Krishnan, R. (2016, October 27). Cyrus Mistry vs Ratan Tata: A guide to the key issues involved. Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Companies/0F1R1KoI1wugK6jq9r1ZFK/The-TataMistry-spat-All-you-need-toknow.html. 37 Arth Anvesan, Volume 12(1 & 2), 2017 ISSN: 0973-8193 xxxiii Kalesh, B., Vijayraghavan, K., & Barman, A. (2016, October 25). Behind the scenes: What led to Cyrus Mistry ouster. The Times of India. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Behind-the-scenes-What-ledto-Cyrus-Mistry-ouster/articleshow/55042818.cms. xxxiv PRATAP, R. (2016, October 25). Tata Cyrus: A clear case of the need for succession planning. The Hindu. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/tata-cyrus-a-clear-case-of-the-need-for-successionplanning/article9267984.ece. xxxv Sonavane, R. (2016, October 25). accessed November 2, 2017, Tata companies’ shares fall after Cyrus Mistry ouster, Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Money/YE6YP7Tm4KDDPI0yZ1zMIN/Tata-Group-companies-sharesfall-after-Cyrus-Mistrys-ouste.html. xxxvi Representation to Stakeholders from the desk of Cyrus Mistry. (2016, December 5). Cyrus for Governance, Retrieved November 4, 2017, from http://cyrusforgovernance.com/pdf/stakeholders/Indian-Hotels-Company-Limited-Stakeholders.pdf. xxxvii Zachariah, R., Vipashana V K. (2016, November 22). Shared Tata strategy only with Trusts: Nirmalya Kumar, The Economic Times. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/shared-tata-strategyonly-with-trusts-nirmalya-kumar/articleshow/55556226.cms. xxxviii Representation to Stakeholders from the desk of Cyrus Mistry. (2016, December 5). Cyrus for Governance, Retrieved November 4, 2017, from http://cyrusforgovernance.com/pdf/stakeholders/Indian-Hotels-Company-Limited-Stakeholders.pdf. xxxix Idib. xl Krishnan, R. (2016, October 27). Cyrus Mistry vs Ratan Tata: A guide to the key issues involved. Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Companies/0F1R1KoI1wugK6jq9r1ZFK/The-TataMistry-spat-All-you-need-to-know.html. xli Idib. xlii Krishnan, R. (2016, October 27). Cyrus Mistry vs Ratan Tata: A guide to the key issues involved. Live Mint. Retrieved 1 November 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Companies/0F1R1KoI1wugK6jq9r1ZFK/The-TataMistry-spat-All-you-need-to-know.html. xliii Representation to Stakeholders from the desk of Cyrus Mistry. (2016, December 5). Cyrus for Governance, Retrieved November 4, 2017, from http://cyrusforgovernance.com/pdf/stakeholders/Indian-Hotels-Company-Limited-Stakeholders.pdf. xliv Idib. xlv Sharma, S. (2016, December 22). Tata Steel EGM: Verdict on Nusli Wadia as independent director likely today. Live Mint. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from http://www.livemint.com/Companies/DB4ZQlnnHIvFlOqidRvweI/Nusli-Wadia-stays-away-fromTata-Steel-EGM.html. xlvi Representation to Stakeholders from the desk of Cyrus Mistry. (2016, December 5). Cyrus for Governance, Retrieved November 4, 2017, from http://cyrusforgovernance.com/pdf/stakeholders/Indian-Hotels-Company-Limited-Stakeholders.pdf. xlvii Our heritage. (n.d.). Tata Group. Retrieved 27 October 2017, fromhttp://www.tata.com/htm/heritage/HeritageOption1.html#2Page/4. xlviii Ratan Tata Biography (2017, September 26). The Famous People. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/ratan-tata-5516.php. 38