relationship dynamics between owners and ceos€¦ · in this ground-breaking study, ......

Relationship Dynamics between Owners and CEOs

No Man’s Land 2

“There is no No Man’s Land here. I take all the decisions.”

Foreword

Family businesses represent the vast majority of enterprises, not only in India but around the world. Given their preponderance in the complex and interlinked global economy, family businesses likewise have complex and interlinked characteristics. They come in all shapes and sizes, all industries, geographies, and generations. And like others, they constantly struggle to balance long-term and short-term interests, internal and external constituents, and economic and social value.

In this ground-breaking study, Amrop India Partners and Professor Sunil Maheshwari explore how one of the most essential challenges to family business – the overlap (or “No Man’s Land”) between family executives and hired professional managers – looks and feels different depending upon whose point of view we take, and what that means for the actions of firms, family members, and those responsible for the governance and performance of enterprises. In particular, the findings here about the differences between the points of view of first and second-generation owner-executives, as well as how these may be changing over time, have important implications for top management recruitment, development, and performance.

Ever since my first research visit to India some 25 years ago, when I studied a large family business group based in Chennai, it has been clear to me that India’s growth into the modern manufacturing and service powerhouse it has become, has been highly linked with the ability of family enterprises to engage with the broader society and with educated, non-family professionals to build globally competitive firms. The present study adds depth, data, and thought-provoking questions to that multifaceted and critical set of developments. I hope you find it as informative as I have.

By Maury Peiperl, BSE (PRINCETON) MBA AM PhD (HARVARD) FRSAProfessor of Leadership and Strategic ChangeIMD, Lausanne, Switzerland(To visit IMD’s Global Family Business Centre, please see: http://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/global-centers/family-business/ )

Page 01

Abstract

This research report examines the concept of “No Man’s Land” and attempts to identify the reasons for its existence in organisations by discussing the findings obtained from 12 well known family business houses of India. Three groups of executives participated in the study: owner executives, next generation executives and external executives. In comparison, an earlier study conducted by Amrop International in 2006, had examined the bilateral relationship dynamics between only owner executives and external executives. The introduction of next generation executives (versus first generation “owner executives”) allows us to evaluate the tripartite relationship dynamics and understand whether No Man’s Land as established in the earlier study is still in existence and to what extent today.

The study finds that while No Man’s Land (NML) does exist to some extent, it is not significant enough to hamper the performance of people within the organisations. As many as 67 % of the owner executives, and 86 and 87 % of next generation executives and external executives, respectively, deny the presence of NML in their companies. Moreover, there appears to be an increasing trend towards professionalising organisations by hiring competent external executives.

External executives are given adequate recognition in these family owned business enterprises. About 58 % of the entire groups of participants in the study (owner executives, next generation executives and external executives) believe, that the passion of an external executive towards the company equals that of the owner executive.

The study concludes by discussing strategies to reduce No Man’s Land. These include bringing in role clarity, strengthening governance and governance mechanisms, open communication between the three groups of stakeholders, creating a unifying culture, handling succession concerns well, aligning family and business plans, creating norms, rules and systems, and careful selection of persons in leadership roles.

The study is gender neutral and ‘she’ or ‘he’ is used for the ease of language and will always mean both together.

Amrop India Partners

Page 02

About Professor Sunil Maheshwari

Prof. Sunil Maheshwari is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Ahmedabad having more than 25 years of professional and academic experience. He is the founder member of WOne Management Systems; a consulting organisation setup in late 2008, working in the area of turnaround management and organisational restructuring.

He is working as professor of HRM and Strategic Management at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad since May 2000. During his academic stint his research interest focused on Turnaround Management, Organisational Transformation, Strategic HRM, Healthcare Management, Expatriate Management and Management of SMEs.

He is also the Chairman of the Board of Academy of HRD. He has been on the board of Andhra Bank. Prior to his joining IIM Ahmedabad, he worked as Senior Personnel Officer in Indian Railways. He also worked as Professor at Railway Staff College in 1998. Prior to working with Indian Railways, he worked as Engineer with BHEL. He received a gold medal for being among the best executives in Indian Railways.

He has been a consultant to a number of organisations in India and abroad. His consulting has primarily focused on streamlining HR systems and practises in entrepreneurial firms but at the same time his work spans several other sectors in the India and abroad. His report on Governance at AIIMS has been widely acclaimed. He has been involved in the development of vision statement for many organisations. He has conducted management development programmes (MDP) for companies such as Hero Honda Motors Ltd, Bank of Baroda, HPCL, AVIVA, to name a few.

His key publications include a book on “Turnaround Excellence” published by Penguin, Tata McGraw Hill and several research papers in national and international journals. He has presented papers in various international and national forums including in countries such as the USA, China, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Bangladesh.

Page 03

Contents

5 Background 6 Defining No Man’s Land

8 Incidence of No Man’s Land 10 Characteristics of

Family-Managed Firms in India

20 External Executive’s Capability and Professionalisation 26 Strategies

to manage No Man’s Land

Please interpret, Quotation and Graphs marked in Red for Owner Executive, Blue for External Executive and Green for Next Generation Executive.

Page 04

Background

In most countries including India, family business has been the dominant form of business ownership and management. In fact, as per a recent report by Credit Suisse1, India has the highest percentage share of family businesses in Asia, accounting for 67% of total listed companies. As many as 663 out of 983 listed Indian firms are family businesses and they account for half of all corporate hiring. Family businesses in India account for 46.8% of the total market capitalisation. These findings clearly indicate that family firms are the backbone of the private economy and help drive national socioeconomic and entrepreneurial development.

However, research indicates that family managed firms have one major limitation. Despite the genuine desire to see the continuation of the business in the family over a long term, only 30% of family owned businesses survive into the second generation and only 11% survive into the third generation, with only 3% of all family businesses continuing through the fourth generation or beyond. These grim statistics have much to do with inadequate integration of the family system and business systems and inadequate succession planning. In most cases succession just happens rather than being planned, thereby resulting in less than desired outcomes2.

However, some essential characteristics of family managed businesses have changed over the decades in the Indian context, which have led to favourable outcomes.

During the pre-liberalisation phase, the success of family owned businesses came largely from the close-knit joint family structure that fosters family values, teamwork, tenacity and continuity. Under this structure, generations lived and worked together under one roof, reaffirming the Weberian values and trust that have built successful businesses. Wealth from the businesses supported the joint family by providing a social safety net for members. Businesses and families were intertwined though they were also distinct entities with separate rules. Hence, survival of the family cohesion became synonymous with the survival of the business.

However, the scene changed post the liberalisation of 1991. Family businesses, which dominated Indian markets till then, faced competition from multinationals that had superior

(1) http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/India-highest-share-Asia-reuters-1860765646.html assessed on 07 November 7, 2011. (2) Richard A. Vinci. (2005) Easing Family Succession: How a Tailored Recap May Be the Answer. Family Business Quarterly, Volume 15 , No. 2 (3) Indian Entrepreneurship And The Challenges To India’s Growth: How the Indian Family Business and its entrepreneurial spirit play an important role in India’s growth, assessed on

02 November 2011 from http://business.in.com/printcontent/28952

technology, financial strength and deeper managerial resources. Thus, Indian businesses had to change their focus and re-orient their outlook outward, while at the same time keeping their strengths intact. Notwithstanding the serious challenges that family firms face, there are numerous examples of companies in India and abroad3, that have found the keys to longevity and prospered over the generations, creating wealth and sustaining their competitiveness.

For businesses to succeed in today’s age, the professionalisation of management practises and systems has to be ensured. The engagement of competent and experienced professionals is a crucial step towards building an organisation that could excel in a competitive environment. This requires a sound professional relationship between the owners and its executives. They need to trust each other’s capability and commitment and partner in the strategy and culture of the firm. The owners and external executives also need to understand each other and be clear about each other’s beliefs as well as roles and responsibilities, failing which, a “No Man’s Land” situation can occur.

Organisations Participating in the StudyThis research report examines the concept of “No Man’s Land” and attempts to identify the reasons for its existence in organisations by discussing the findings obtained from 12 well known family business houses of India. The business groups/companies that participated in the study are:

Ashok Piramal Group Bry-Air (Pahwa Group)Future Group GVK GroupHinduja Group HT MediaJSW Steel Kalpataru GroupPidilite Industries RPG EnterprisesWelspun Group Zuari Industries

In-depth interviews with Owner Executives (OE), Next Generation Executive (NGE) and External Executive (EE) provided rich insight into the organisational and family systems and their inter-linkages. These interviews varied between 30 minutes to 3 hours duration.

Page 05

Defining No Man’s L and

No Man’s Land (NML) is a term typically used for land that is unoccupied or is under dispute between parties for reasons of fear or uncertainty. The term was originally used to define a contested territory or a dumping ground for refuse between fiefdoms4.

In the area of Management, ‘No Man’s Land’ is a term that is used largely with reference to family owned businesses and refers to the area of interdependence between owners and their external executives and is thus used to describe the trust, relationship, and it’s sustainability, between them (refer figure 1). In anticipation that others will act, lack of trust, fear and role ambiguity lead to inaction by both sets of executives.

The light and dark grey shaded areas are actually the ‘grey’ areas of interdependence which leads to No Man’s Land. While some amount of the partial No Man’s Land does get covered up, the complete NML is often left unattended. When managed with sensitivity, tact and focus, this interdependence area can provide simple, yet profound solutions to the factors that cause it. For instance, while the journey of the organisation is one of professionalisation (the interdependence area in this context), the very definition of professionalisation is viewed differently by owners and executives. This difference may be subtle, but has

strong impact. For External Executives, existence of systems may be a priority and define professionalism, while for owners it may mean right capability and delivery of results. So, while owners may lay equal emphasis on systems and processes, results may be a priority. This incongruence can lead to one viewing the other as less professional. NML is always open to interpretation. It is not necessarily influenced by the degree of freedom that an EE is granted, but is more a result of ambiguities in the boundaries of responsibilities.

A study done by Amrop International5 in 2006 indicates that it is this subtle divergent emphasis of priorities, that leads to fitment issues and the EEs who focus on delivering, are rewarded by being allowed to encroach on the owner’s side of “No Man’s Land”. Key insights and conclusions from the study indicate that:

1. The passion of External Executives (EEs) for business is generally lower than that of Owner Executives (OE). EEs are likely to be more focused on their shorter-term professional success, their careers and wealth creation than OEs and NGEs.

2. OEs that were able to synchronise their motivations with EEs’ aspirations were able to bring out the best in them.

3. EEs that brought genuine passion became long term oriented. 4. While EEs expect independence and empowerment; when it

came to decision-making, they actually hesitate and prefer not to take it. The real decision-making is delegated upwards to owners who are also comfortable in that space.

5. OEs that groom and encourage their executives to understand decision-making in their context, end up ensuring a mature process of empowerment. However, in doing so, they have to have the stomach to withstand the executive’s failure.

6. Most EEs are stimulated by the speed of decision-making and the desire to experiment – qualities that are more visible in family run businesses than MNCs.

7. The EEs capabilities that succeed as CEOs in the family business context are:•Stature and leadership, which adds to the market

credibility of these companies

Figure 1: No Man’s Land.

Owner Executive’s area of responsibility

Complete No Man’s Land Partial No Man’s Land

External Executive’s area of responsibility

(4) Persico, Joseph E. (2005). Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day, 1918 World War I and Its Violent Climax. Random House. ISBN 0375760458. Assessed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_man’s_land#Reference-Persico on 02 November 2011.

(5) Amrop International, 2006. No Man’s Land: Relationship Dynamics between Owners and CEOs.

Page 06

Defining No Man’s Land

•Ability to commit to the long term agenda and hence alignment with owner’s vision

•Execution ability and hence, performance and delivery•Higher maturity indicated by patience and tolerance to

ambiguity•Courage to take decisions and the humility to justify

them•A pro-activeness to negotiate and manage NML rather

than seeking guarantees

Most of the insights obtained during the interviews in this study, shed light on the causal factors for NML, and strategies to address this challenge are discussed at length in subsequent sections. They also lead to the conclusion that in order to reduce the area of NML, both sides need to work on aligning and understanding each other’s motives. This may sound easy, but it is a complicated process that demands sensitivity and skill on both sides.

Organisations undertake two types of activities: task-oriented and relationship-oriented. Family businesses are known to spend substantial time on relationship-oriented activities. These organisations are known to have high social capital. Frequently family managed business is quoted as “family business is business of relationship.” Lack of efforts to deal with issues in each of these two areas could lead to undesirable business consequences.

Further, NML could be owing to either of two factors: 1. Delay in attending the business concern 2. Assigning inadequate importance to the issue

Both dimensions of NML cause inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in organisations. By combining these two factors with business goals and relational goals, NML can be classified into four areas (table 1).

Each NML area poses different challenges and implications for family firms. In cases where relational considerations dominate, NML might have long-term adverse impact. However owners, managers, and other family stakeholders might give different levels of importance to business and relational issues.

Managing NML is the key to professionalise the relationships between OEs and EEs. This essentially requires,

1. An examination of key characteristics of family-managed organisations.

2. An examination of the various causes of NML, some of which may be attributed to the key characteristics of family managed organisations.

Both of these are discussed below:

Table 1: Types of No Man’s Land.

Types of Issues

Business

Relational

Delayed Action of the Issue Lack of Importance to the Issue

Delayed Business Response

Delayed Relationship Response

Inadequate Business Response

Inadequate Relationship Response

Page 07

Incidence of No Man’s Land

In this research, wide variations were seen in perception of NML across the three sets of executives. Though there was widespread denial about the existence on NML, nearly one-third of OEs accepted the existence of NML. However, only 13% of EEs and 14% of NGEs accepted the existence of NML.

It is interesting to note that while the viewpoints of the EEs and NGEs are in synergy, the OEs differ from both the other groups and perceive NML to be higher. This is possible because of the following reasons:•OEs are the ones who have toiled hard to set up the

company and have the highest stakes. Thus, they are continuously vigilant about anything that may lead to undesirable outcomes for the company and hence they perceive the threat of NML more than the others.

•The visionary attitude, leadership qualities and experience of OEs also make them more adept at identifying the not-so-desirable characteristics of their company.

•OEs’ passion for business is very high. One of the OEs stated, “Business is my hobby. I do not get tired in business as I enjoy it so much.” This also often leads to their higher expectations from EEs. The mismatch between expectations and actual performance often leads to the perception of NML.

In one organisation, the owner chairman stated:“There is no NML here. I, myself, am a hands-on manager. I ensure that no situation remains unattended.”

Interestingly, in the same organisation the head of HR stated,“There are frequent changes of decisions by the owner. It has caused high amount of NML in the company.”

In another company, the head of HR stated:“There is no NML here. We, the professionals at the top are very vigilant. We take charge of the situation immediately whenever there is realisation of any gaps or delay in decision-making.”

In another company an EE at the top stated:“There is little NML here. OE makes most of the decisions here. He himself goes deep into the issues. He has created well-defined systems. Hence the incidences of NML are very few in our company.”

As there was wide spread denial of NML, we tried to measure NML indirectly to validate the same. To measure the delayed response to business issues, we asked, “Do we confront business issues promptly here?”; the responses are as in figure 3:

The diagram above shows an overall score of 4.4 and the viewpoints of the EEs, OEs and NGEs show almost uniformity in perception, thus indicating that incidences of NML on this aspect, are low in these companies. Each group believes that the other promptly responds to business challenges, which is a positive. This could also be due to the core values and culture prevalent in the organisations. These organisations are private entities and delays in handling business issues is inconsistent with their core values since it would be detrimental to their performance.

We further asked the question about the pro-action in the company to assess NML. The responses are as in figure 4. On this account, OEs response was 3.6, EEs was 3.9 and NGEs was 3.7, which indicates that family managed firms have significant scope of improvement. This also reflects the prevailing zone of NML in organisations. As most of the OEs and NGEs are involved in strategic decision-making, EEs might be waiting for OEs and NGEs to take a call on important decisions.

OwnerExecutive

Figure 2: Does No Man’s Land Exist? (% agreement)

33% 13% 14%

ExternalExecutive

Next GenerationExecutive

Figure 3: Are business issues promptly confronted? (on a scale of 5)

4.4

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


4.54.2

Page 08

Incidenceof No Man’s Land

However, withdrawal of EEs from active involvement in the companies makes it difficult for OEs and NGEs to respond very effectively and ensure organisational pro-action. To overcome this challenge, one of the EE who was the head of an important business in a Group stated:“It is important to keep OEs and NGEs involved in all the important operational and strategic matters. Though I am completely empowered to make decision, I ensure that they are either informed or involved in all the important decisions.”

The OE and NGEs in the same company stated:“We feel very assured and comfortable as the CEO shares all the important decisions and information with us almost on real time basis.”

To validate this further, we asked, “do managers hesitate in taking decisions?” the responses were as under.

The findings were noteworthy and need to be delved into further. Over 75% of the OEs believed that professionals hesitate to take decisions if given the freedom. This finding is consistent

with previous research. OEs are generally capable of taking decisions which involve high stakes and which may be called ‘risky decisions’ and this is where their interest lies as well, from a business expansion point of view. Their experience and interactions with EEs may lead them to believe that EEs do not take decisions which are critical at strategic level (and their area of interest and concern), though they may take decisions at day to day operational level. There is also a general belief that, most of the professionals are not encouraged to take critical decisions involving reasonably high stakes and their risk taking appetite in this regard is likely to be lower than that of the OE. Understandably, an EEs preparedness to face failures is likely to be limited because of the possible long-term implications of any failure to their career, which they can ill-afford.

Ironically, the study found that while the OEs believed that professionals hesitate in decision making, most EEs and NGEs did not think so. As many as 78% of the EEs and 60 % of NGEs (figure 5)felt that, professionals are becoming increasingly more self-confident and are willing to take decisions. This may be explained by the fact that all the organisations’ in this study, were relatively large and well-known companies, where systems and processes are already well established and OEs did not involve themselves in operational decision making. Nonetheless, the discrepancy in the findings between the OE on one hand and EE and NGEs on the other indicates that while the EE may be satisfied with his/her involvement in decision making, the OE still expects more. This again has implications for NML.

Discussions during interviews revealed that NML on the relationship dimension was perceived to be non-existent. Consistently in all the companies, managers in all the three groups typically responded in following words:“The need to spend time on relationship building with external network has reduced over a period of time. The required time is adequately spent by NGEs and EEs. Internally, the acceptability of NGEs is high. There is no delay and lack of response on relationship related matters.”

To understand the concept of NML and reasons for differences in perceptions of OEs, NGEs and EEs, it is essential to closely examine the characteristics of family-managed firms in India. We describe that in the next chapter.

Figure 4: Pro-action in the company to assess No Man’s Land? (on a scale of 5)

3.6

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


3.73.9

Figure 5: Do Professional hesitate to take decisions if given the freedom? (% agreement)

OwnerExecutive

75% 22% 40%

ExternalExecutive


Page 09

Characteristics of Family-Managed Firms in India

Family businesses present a paradox. They are often perceived to be prone to nepotism and conflict. Yet, research indicates that family businesses out-perform other firms on return on equity criteria.

Family businesses have unique features in structure, relationships, and decision-making. They simultaneously carry two systems: the business system and family system. Families are about caring and businesses are about money. Planning for these two, often-conflicting systems, is complex and critical to family harmony and business success. The complexity of the issues increases when the Next Generation Executive (NGE) enters into the business.

Family business organisations typically have three groups of internal stakeholders:

1. Owner Executives (OE)2. Next Generation Executives (NGE)3. External Executives (EE), who are also often referred to as

Professional Executives.

Understanding how family-organisations manage the dynamics between these three groups of stakeholders, has both theoretical and practical importance. While in some companies, the NGE and OE think alike, in others they may differ significantly. The next generation might give higher priority to economic considerations than to the non-economic considerations. In one company, the EE shared:“OE did not believe in public share and borrowing. He believed that entrepreneurs should not risk public money in business and thus should not borrow for business expansion. However the NGE believes that borrowing is essential for ensuring growth.”

Increasingly in India, NGEs are able to carve out an independent business path for themselves. In one of the company, an EE stated: “OE’s influence in business is low. NGE has taken an independent approach”.

In another company, an EE stated that people could relate more to the OE who was highly driven, a role model and yet a people’s man. He said,“There is little NML with the OE. However there is significant NML in

matters that are looked after by NGE. Many people are loyal to the OE who is highly energetic. Clarity of roles with Chairman is high. It is important to be honest with him and plead ignorance if not aware of facts. EEs know what he expects. However, this is not true with the NGE.”

The study also reveals that the imprints of OEs’ decision-making style remains in the organisation, even after NGEs taking over the management. In one business house, an EE stated about the relationship between NGE and OE:“The MD carries profound impact of his father. When confronted with tricky situations, he often asks in the midst of the meetings, “What would my father have done in this situation?”

It is essential that the top team works united. The adverse impact of possible conflict between EEs, NGEs and OEs could be disastrous. One of the EEs stated:“In a family run business, alignment with the top is a must.” The continuity of family members at the top, does not always ensure continuity of practises; although the traditions and legacy established by previous leaders may carry legitimacy. Successors face the difficult task of deciding how much to conform or deviate from the decisions made by their predecessors. This could be a source of NML when the EEs who had worked with OE were still employed. In one of the companies NGE stated:“Many times, I have difference with the views of EEs on important matters in the meetings. I have often decided to remain quiet to avoid the risk of getting them emotionally hurt. I do lots of homework to present my data-based analysis to them, to share my views in meetings.”

Family firms are often started with intentions for the trans-generational sustainability of family involvement. Such intentions partially mediate the relationship between family involvement in ownership and management. The tendency to behave altruistically towards family members can make monitoring futile and upset the relationship between the contributions and compensation of family members. The other important family issues in Family-managed firms are: • Long lasting influence of family on the dominant coalition

Page 10


• Longer leadership tenures•Desire to accumulate socioemotional wealth for future

generations •Strong identification of the family with the firm•Desire to maintain a positive reputation of the family•Relational conflicts that can adversely affect strategy

implementation and relationships

Separation of Ownership and Management Business houses in India are traditionally known for being managed by family. There is an emerging trend in the country where owners are able to differentiate between ownership and management. Increasingly owners are willing to transfer management to the professionals.

One of the first generation entrepreneur stated:“I do not visualise any role in the current businesses of the Group for the next generation. The members of the next generations will have to start new ventures. Family members should be responsible for creation and maintenance; growth of their creation should be left to professionals. This approach utilises the capabilities of the two key groups of people to the fullest.”

In one business house that had entered the fourth generation, the NGE mentioned,“There is no family member in business now. Competence cannot be compromised and family members can often hamper the business if they are not equally capable. I will be surprised if my children come into business.”

In another company where the second generation had entered the business, the EE stated,“All the roles except technology are occupied by EEs here.”

In another firm where many relatives were employed, the second-generation entrepreneur stated: “All the family members in the company are professionals. They are graduates in Chemical Engineering from the best colleges. Yet, we will not recruit anyone from the third generation in the current business. This would save the business from family’s relationship complexities.”

Confirming the increasing trend of transferring management of organisations to professionals, one OE stated:“My role is that of providing Thought Leadership. I do not foresee a situation when family members will hold substantial positions in the existing Group companies. They will have to create new entities for themselves. Once created, professionals need to manage them”.

He further stated:“Entrepreneurs are creative people. Their creative energy can be destructive, if not channelised properly. The large number of ideas has potential to create chaos in the organisations. It is essential for professional managers to balance the creative energy with their patience and perseverance.”

In another group where the NGEs were still to be meaningfully engaged in the business, the OE stated:“The management of the company should be left to professionals. The OEs role should be restricted to strategic decisions. Trust and empowerment of EEs reduces NML and ensures success of business. I am concerned about the aspirations of my two sons and their career. However, I would be reluctant to assign them regular executive positions in the Group.”

The responses indicate that, there is an increasing trend of separation of ownership and management, though this trend appears to be still in its nascent stage. In this study, all but three organisations were willing to employ the next generation into business. However, there were NGEs who believed that they were born to take over the management of the companies at some stage.

When asked about career options, NGE stated:“I never thought of any career except to work in this company. Since childhood it was known to me that I would be responsible for managing this company.”

On the related issue of assigning roles to NGEs, one of the OEs stated:“Assigning leadership roles to my two sons has been bothering me. I will have to ensure peace in the family and growth of the business by appropriate allocation of ownership to them.”

Page 11


On the whole, it appears that OE’s are becoming slowly open to hiring EEs in senior management positions. The emerging trends are:•There are variations in OEs’ individual preferences for NGE

over EEs. Over a long term, the choice is likely to be governed by the capability, competency and commitment of the NGEs and EEs. NGEs who dream of joining their parents’ business may be required to prove themselves’ to be capable, professionally qualified, and thus “professionals like EEs”. NGEs that succeed in doing so may continue to assume a significant role in the management of family managed business groups.

•OEs who are visionaries and want to make their business empire big, understand the complications that sibling rivalry and other relational factors can bring into the business and act as roadblocks to expansion plans.

•The decreasing family size of business families (which is restricted to one or two children in most of the families) warrants the increasing involvement of professionals.

Involvement of Spouses and Relatives in Management For effective execution of roles, decision-making powers are defined in organisations. However, certain stakeholders can wield considerable power owing to their proximity with the OEs despite lower position in the organisational structure. Spouses and children are the most influential among the family members. The influence of other family members is dependent on criticality of the relationship. Hence, in-laws, cousins and uncles and aunts often gain legitimacy in family firms. Successful firms have systematically protected themselves from relationship pressures.

In many of the business families, women are assigned the task of maintaining family harmony and undertaking social activities. The head of HRM in one of the companies stated: “This is a Marwari company. In Marwari traditions, women are kept outside the business. They are expected to maintain family relations. This helps in maintaining balance between relationship and business concerns.”

Eight out of twelve firms stated that they have strictly avoided

recruitment of relatives in their organisations. In a company where a relative was employed, the OE stated, “The relative is just like any other employee. I do not discuss any business matter with him. Any attempt of discussion with him would create serious problems for business.”

Structure and OEs’ Role In most of the firms, family members occupy critical positions. However, the positions that are held by family members change with progressive generations. In first generation family organisations, maintaining network with financial institutions, key policy makers, suppliers etc. is among the key roles of promoters. However, in subsequent generations in family owned organisations, this role is gradually taken over by EEs.

To manage NML effectively, it is essential to have clarity about the roles of OEs. Hence, specific questions were asked about the role of OEs in family managed firms. No manager in any organisation was of the view that an OE has no role in the company.

Figure 6.1: What kind of role does OE play in the firm?

OwnerExecutive

60% 78% 80%

ExternalExecutive


100% 89% 100%

a ) As a Major Investment Decision taker: (% agreement)

b ) As an Advisor or Consultant: (% agreement)

Page 12


When asked what kind of role does OE play in the organisation? They all unanimously expected two important roles for the OEs:

1. Major investment decisions and 2. Advisory and consulting services.

One of the prime responsibilities of top management relates to allocation of role to members of the leadership teams. This helps the leaders in adequate governance of the workplace. Almost all the respondents agreed, that this is an important role that OEs should perform. However, the allocation of work to these members should be undertaken by EEs or NGEs. Nearly 33% of EEs and 60% of OEs expect to have little role in work allocation at the top. This seems to be a risky trend from governance perspective.

Further, this has implications for NML, since unanimity in this is useful to minimise confusions related to work allocations. OEs are seen as leaders who could be trusted for advisory role in organisations. Their rich experience and past success makes them extremely acceptable in this very important role.

With regard to the role of chief decision maker, about 40% of OEs believe that this is their major role, whereas most EEs and NGEs don’t treat this as a key role for OEs. On further exploration, the managers stated, that OEs are not chief decision makers for day-to-day issues of the organisation. They are left to EEs. OEs are involved in periodic strategic decisions. Hence, major financial decisions are taken either by OEs or in consultation with OEs.

Further, companies viewed purchasing as an important role that should remain either with NGEs or OEs. This overall trend indicates that, OEs are willing to let go off the management of organisations to EEs and NGEs. However, they ensure governance through their involvement in key hiring, financial investments, strategic decisions and purchasing

Family Members’ (NGEs and OEs) Role In almost all the organisations, family members (OE, NGE or both) were intensely involved in strategic decisions. As an EE mentioned,“Vision and Strategy are with family. Rest is with EE. Family provides thought leadership.”

The decisions that relate to the following areas were conceived as strategic by OEs and NGEs:• Large investment•Diversification•Key technology decisions

Finance: In all organisations, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is among the key members for decision-making. He is among the most trusted persons of the business. Yet, the family members personally review the financials of the company on sustained basis. In one of the companies the OE stated:“I have empowered the executives to take decisions on matters related to one-time expenses. Any decision that involves recurring expenses over a large period of time needs my approval.”

Another OE stated:“Any payment over the specified amount needs my signature. This enables me to keep good control over finances.”

Figure 6.2: What kind of role does OE play in the firm?

OwnerExecutive

40% 67% 20%

ExternalExecutive


40% 20% 20%

c ) As a Work Allocator to Team Members (% agreement)

d ) As a Chief Decision Maker: (% agreement)

Page 13


OE in another company stated:“I review cash flow on a daily basis. This is critical for my business.”

Yet another OE said:“Public Money is involved. It needs to be protected and ensure better returns to investors. Careful decisions need to be taken.” Thus, while perspectives may differ, the common point is that decision making in matters relating to large financial investments rests with the family.

Purchase: In almost all the companies, OEs are either directly involved in purchases, or they keep a close watch over the same. Some of the responses of OEs are listed below:“The raw material in our product constitutes more than 60% of cost. It is essential for me to ensure the purchase of raw material at the best possible price. I cannot leave this decision to anyone. I myself take all raw material related purchase decisions.”

EE in another firm stated:“Being in trading, we operate with very thin margins. All purchases of products are risky. Even a slight incorrect purchase decision can ruin the organisation very quickly. Such risky decisions are necessarily to be undertaken by the entrepreneurs.”

Key Staffing Decisions: OEs and NGEs are very sensitive about the staffing decisions at key positions. They spend good time and resources to identify and develop personnel for such roles. In all the companies, in this study, OEs and NGEs take deep interest in this function.

In fact, the importance of this function is clearly reflected in the

verbatim of one NGE, when he was asked what the key roles in the company were:“Roles of CEOs and HR are the most important in the company.”

A critical factor in the family’s participation in ownership and leadership roles is ensuring, that qualified members are selected and that they perform on the job. In all the organisations, OEs stated that, their primary role was to ensure selection of capable people in leadership roles and give them space to perform.

This is where family agreement plays an important role in mediating disputes over how family members are selected, for roles in family and business. It is important to have clear criteria and a well-communicated nomination process, that is applied consistently to avoid damaging conflicts between family members. The next section discusses the ways that family managed firms have adopted to overcome this challenge in India. Effective family-governance and business-governance mechanisms can prevent family members from claiming roles, they are not prepared for or from continuing in roles where they are not performing.

NGE’s Role Family managed firms carry sound business strategies, but lack of planning for the family, is perceived as a concern and a serious threat to sustaining the family’s commitment. They face challenges of finding ways to share the ownership among NGEs along with deciding their roles. We found in the study that successful firms plan well for the family to safeguard business from any possible family conflicts.

Table 2: Action taken by one OE having 4 sons to safeguard the business from possible family conflicts.

• OE systematically planned and handed over different businesses to his sons. He allowed full freedom to his sons for expansion and day-to-day management. He formed a norm that anyone could borrow from brothers but would have to return money.

• Brothers were made co-owners in the business. Every company’s shares were divided into 5 parts. Each brother got one part and OE retained the fifth one. This fifth part was transferred to the mother after the death of OE.

• The fifth share, currently held by the mother will be eventually transferred to the operating son.• Brothers are not inter-locked in the boards. They have no direct or indirect say in business.

Page 14


In one of the companies, following initiatives (described in table 2) were undertaken to protect the firm from possible conflicts in the family.

In another Group, the OE carefully grew the businesses very independently. The interdependence and inter-linkages of businesses with each other was extremely low. This enabled the OE to distribute the ownership among the NGEs successfully without any family complexities.

However, NGEs do not have active roles in all the family-managed business groups. In our study, four Groups had planned to transfer the management to the professionals. The NGEs were expected to play strategic and monitoring role on the board. In the fourth Group, NGEs were not to be members of the Board. They were expected to create new businesses. However, in some of the Groups, taking over of business leadership position by the NGE was taken for granted. In one company the MD (also EE) stated,“I was looking for my successor. I have surpassed the retirement age. Three functional heads could have succeeded me. However, I had my preference for the Head of Marketing. On a particular day the Chairman called me and told me that he wanted his son to be the next MD.”

The MD further stated,“The NGE had graduated from a leading college in US. He had respect in the Group for his behaviour and maturity. He had already worked for nearly 7 years in the Group at different positions. I had been instrumental in his grooming for leadership role. I announced it to my head of Marketing.”

The marketing head replied to MD: “I have no problem in reporting to the NGE. In family businesses one is expected to report to family persons at some stage of their career.”

Family organisations are characterised by intimate involvement of OE, NGE and EE. Each of them carries different levels of aspirations and organisational expectations. During our interviews, we observed that an NGE in one of the Groups was finding it difficult to justify his involvement and aspirations. He genuinely felt that he could have been more deeply involved in

the business that was already transferred to professionals. Such attributes of stakeholders and their dynamics have significant implications for NML and organisational performance. NML is shaped by the blending of differential power, self-efficacy and stakes between OE, NGE and EE.

Grooming of NGEs: As the business Groups in India are increasingly becoming dependent on professionals, the acceptance of NGEs in the top managerial position remains a challenge. Inadequate development of NGEs carries high risk of NML. Family managed firms have been adopting a systematic approach to groom them. Most of the NGEs unanimously stated:“I have been listening to the business discussions since childhood days. I have also attended the important meetings informally. This has helped me a lot to shape up my business acumen.”

In this study we found that all the NGEs were technically qualified. Majority of them received their qualifications from top schools in US and Europe. Some of them had worked in organisations outside the Group. Most of them had worked at different levels before occupying the top management positions.

NGEs were aware of the possible conflict with the EEs who were much more experienced and older in age to them. To overcome this challenge, one of the NGEs stated:“I look at them as my guides to learn from their wisdom. I respect them. I prepare well with detailed analysis if I were to present a different view on any matter in a meeting.”

Governance-the Board Adequate governance is essential to minimise incidences of NML. In family firms, traditional business goals of growth and profit co-exist; with objectives of maintaining relationships among family members and associated non-economic goals. Inadequate governance can lead to possible conflict between the two, leading to NML. Hence they need strong governance. However the family managed firms are often criticised for having weak boards. The Groups were asked whether the boards in family managed firms were rubber stamps. The responses of the executives are indicated in figure 7 (next page).

Page 15


About half of the NGEs and EEs believed that the board was indeed a rubber stamp though the number of OEs who believed the same was slightly less (43%). The difference on this parameter partly owes to different expectations about the role of the board. OEs’ expectations about own involvement in the decision remain critical. Denial on the part of the OE about weaknesses of the board, can lead to NML (linked to assigning less importance to the issue) between them on the one hand and the NGEs and EEs on the other, which can lead to delayed business responses. To overcome this paradox, EE in one of the companies stated:“I am fully authorised to take business decisions. I am expected to present my decisions to the board where family members are also present. It is not essential, yet, I ensure to present my decisions before implementation. This makes them comfortable in board meetings. To manage their expectation, it is important for me to keep them completely informed.”

An NGE who had seen a family split that hampered business, stated:“Boards should be more active, and only qualified family members should be there on the Board.”

However, the NGE believing that the board should play a more important role, is indicative of the increasing tendency for preference of professionalisation of management and functioning of the board.

Decision Making Speed Family managed firms are known to be very agile in decision-making. The centralisation of authority and strong sense of

ownership makes them quick in their responses to the changes in the environment. When asked about the quickness of decision-making as compared to large MNCs, all the respondents were unanimous to agree that family managed firms were quicker of the two. This also indicates that NML in family firms is perhaps lower as compared to that in large MNCs. While family managed firms are confronted with the challenge of balancing family system and business system, MNCs carry multiple authorities at different levels of decision-making with often contradictory goals and objectives.

Long Term Orientation The chief executives in family managed firms continue in their roles for long term unlike shorter tenure of CEOs in other forms of organisations. Family firms are known to value collective benefits, reciprocity, long-term commitments, and relationships. Non-family firms, on the other hand, are likely to be driven by contractual relationships leading to short term orientations.

Figure 9: Chief Executives has a long term orientation in family run companies? (% agreement)

OwnerExecutive

67% 60% 60%

ExternalExecutive


OwnerExecutive

Figure 8: Very agile in Decision Making? (% agreement)

100% 100% 100%

ExternalExecutive


OwnerExecutive

Figure 7: Does Board act as a Rubber Stamp? (% agreement)

43% 50% 52%

ExternalExecutive


Page 16


Hence it is expected that family managed organisations would be more long term driven in their business decisions as compared to MNCs.

The above result shows that, in majority of family-managed organisations, the long term orientation is better than that of MNCs. This unity of direction and purpose helps in achieving higher performance.

Advantages of Family Firms over MNCs Family managed firms carry many distinct advantages over MNCs and other forms of organisations. The list of advantages with percentage of respondents agreeing to the same is shown in figure 10.

All the three groups believe that family managed businesses are better than MNCs and other forms of large organisations on all of the above mentioned traits. However, there is unanimity

about networking with stakeholders and risk-taking. Passion for the organisation is believed to be high particularly by NGEs and EEs and ownership by OEs and NGEs. OEs believe very strongly that family businesses are good at sensing business opportunities, networking with stakeholders, offering empowerment and trust, and risk taking.

There is a difference of opinion between the three groups; all differences are in the positive direction. EEs feel significantly less positive on the two parameters of ownership, and trust and empowerment. This is significant and indicates that expectations of EEs in many cases are not being satisfied on these two parameters. However, NGEs and OEs seem to be satisfied on these parameters. The above listed advantages also potentially explain the better performance of family-managed firms despite the possible complexity of family system.

Figure 10: Advantage of working in a Family run firm: (% agreement)

a ) Encourage Ideas, allow experimentation:

b ) Continuity of core values:

c ) Passion for organisation:

d ) Ownership feeling among the employees:

e ) Higher risk-taking:

f ) Empowerment and trust:

g ) Network with stakeholders:

h ) Sensing business opportunities:

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


67% 60% 91%

67% 80% 64%

67% 100% 91%

100% 60% 91%

100% 80% 82%

100% 62% 82%

100% 80% 91%

100% 60% 60%

Page 17


Disadvantages of Family-managed firms The family managed firms are often criticised for reasons listed in figure 11 (next page). Interestingly, majority of people disagree with these disadvantages as indicated by the low percentages.

About 57% of EEs believe that family loyalty is more important than performance in family managed organisations, though OEs and NGEs do not agree with EEs as much on this. While none of the OEs believe that there are limited growth opportunities at the top, a few NGEs and EEs think otherwise. However, a majority of them largely disagree with this statement. On the whole, like in the case of advantages, despite some variations, most do not agree to the disadvantages of family run businesses.

The above results indicate that family-managed firms in India through professionalisation of their management practises have overcome traditional weaknesses.

Owners’ Commitment The owners’ investment decisions represent their level of commitment to the future of the family business. Owners directly influence the business through their financial investment and active participation in ownership and governance roles.

In this study we found that the commitment of First Generation Executives was found to be highest. When asked about hobbies, two Owner Chairmen stated:“Business is my hobby. I live business, dream business and breath business. It is my source of energy.”

Through active ownership and capable leadership, family members’ personal commitment to supporting the family business was reflected in plenty. The presence of qualified family members in the business as executives or board members strengthens the business’ ability to act and to mobilise its stakeholders around critical decisions and actions.

Figure 11: Disadvantage of working in a Family run firm: (% agreement)

a ) Loyalty to family is more important than performance:

b ) Limited growth opportunities at the top:

c ) Forced decision making:

d ) Ego overrules, dissent voice is not encouraged:

e ) Family issues cause problems:

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


40% 57% 42%

0%

40% 43% 58%

40%

40% 43%

25 %

29 %

25 %

33 %

33 %

Page 18

“I never thought of any career except to work in this company. Since childhood it was known to me that I would be responsible for managing this company.”

EEs’ Capability and Professionalisation

Varying concerns may be of priority to the OEs, NGEs and EEs, and each may be unaware of the others’ priorities or perceptions, thus widening the No Man’s Land. The causal factors are embedded in:•Passion and involvement •Decision-making and empowerment•Capabilities of EEs

Passion and Involvement Lack of passion of EEs and NGEs is known to be an important factor that leads to NML. The level of passion and involvement of OEs towards the organisation and business per say is known to be higher as compared to EEs. In more than one company, the OEs stated, “Business is my Passion”. For the OEs and NGEs business is also a symbol of wealth and prestige. It leads to their long-term orientation and possessiveness.

The earlier study done by Amrop International, found the passion of OEs to be more than that of EEs. Further, many EEs also agreed that passion towards the organisation would be higher in OEs as compared to them. The passion of EEs can be driven by multiple factors such as:• Job Satisfaction (which is influenced by opportunities for

growth, respect and recognition and so forth) •The position they occupy in the company •Family security and need for job security • Length of stay in the company

Interestingly, in this study, when OEs, NGEs and EEs were asked “How does the passion of EEs compare with that of OEs?” about

58% of the people believed that the passion was same. However, in comparing the passion of OEs and NGEs, 5% felt that the passion of NGEs, was more as compared to OEs and as many as 69% felt it was the same.

In the former case, while 42 % believed that the passion of EEs was less, the findings nonetheless show an increasing trend in the passion of EEs. This may be indicative of their satisfaction with their work, work environment and relations at workplace. A senior EE mentioned that business was his passion. Yet he would not start his own independent business. His verbatim was:“I never felt like starting my own business. I always felt it to be my own company. I get high respect from both OEs and NGEs. Professionalism and merit bring respect from NGEs.”

The passion of an EE is driven partly by the passion for work and partly by family security. It is not necessarily tied to any organisation per se. Their level of involvement and passion can be governed by other multiple factors as well:•The fact that they have an ultimate boss who will remain the

prime owner and decision maker, can lead to lower passion towards the organisation in some people.

•EEs’ level of passion for the business can be dependent on the stage of the firm’s life-cycle they join and stay on. Those who join when the going is good may leave during the bad times, if they have a better opportunity elsewhere. However, those who grow with the organisation show greater passion and commitment.

Those who join at the start-up phase and grow with the organisation show higher involvement. Those who stick to the

More

Figure 12: How does the passion of EEs compare with OEs?

Same Less

0% 58% 42%

More

Figure 13: How does the passion of NGEs compare with OEs?

Same Less

5% 69% 26%

Page 20


organisation beyond 7-10 years are likely to develop a bonding with the organisation that leads to higher commitment. The passion is also reflected in long tenures of EEs in family businesses. EEs’ length of stay on an average was 12.8 years. This high tenure of EEs at the top level indicates their high level of commitment. EEs seem to believe themselves to be “a part” of the set-up. This could well explain their involvement and passion towards their companies.

While the average length of stay of the NGEs in the sample was 7.3 years, their level of passion is nonetheless perceived to be very high as seen from the chart above. NGEs are bound to have greater passion than EEs for the company due to the relational aspect - the family connection. However, 26% of the people believe that the NGEs passion is lower than that of OE’s. This may be attributed to the fact that they were not the founding generation, but are simply next in line to lead an already established organisation, by virtue of their relationship with the OE.

NML will be higher in case of incongruence between the passion of the OE and EE. However, it will be reduced greatly if each side appreciates and addresses the other’s concerns. For instance, the OE provides ample opportunities for growth and development

to the EE and the EE in turn realises, that he can use his personal and professional skills for the benefit of the company. In one company, the founder shared:“Professionals are responsible for management of the company and they can take all the important decisions. You have to respect people; then only you can be happy. I believe in humanity. We respect them.”

Family managed firms will have to create an organisational climate that is attractive to high-quality EEs with high levels of passion. Research by Amrop International indicates that highly successful, entrepreneurial organisations can be built if Relative Executive and EEs are passionate about their work and place of work.

Decision-making and Empowerment This is a critical issue that creates NML on which both OEs and EEs have to reflect upon, since it has significant impact on how it is managed. This research demonstrates how attributes such as knowledge, values, and beliefs influence people’s perceptions and priorities and thus, the decision-making. Inconsistency of decisions, domination and power differentiation add to creation of NML. In one of the companies the head of HR stated:“OE in our company often keeps changing his decisions. It creates confusion and inaction among the EEs. NML is high here.”Ironically, in the same company OE stated:“I take all the important decisions here. Owing to business model, it is important for me to involve myself in all the important decisions Hence the scope for NML is low here.”

Such problems could be significantly controlled with increasing thrust on objectivity in decision-making. Interestingly, in this study it was found that OEs gave lesser importance to objectivity in decision-making as compared to EEs. On a scale of 5, EEs gave

Figure15: Objectivity in Decision Making? (on a scale of 5)

3.3

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


3.74.3

Figure14: Average number of years in current position.

0

10

20

3024.7 years 12.8 years 7.3 years

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


Median

StandardDeviation

28 years

14 years

7 years

11.6 years

6 years

5.3 years

Page 21


it an importance of 4.3, whereas OEs gave it an importance of only 3.3 (figure 15). OEs seem to rely more on their heuristics.

Perception on empowerment, an important factor that can impact NML significantly, is also found to be different. OEs believe that EEs are significantly empowered (4.8). However, EEs and NGEs believe it to be 4.3 and 3.8 respectively. In one of the organisations the OE stated:“I used to take all the important decisions till two years back. I have started to withdraw.”

In this study, most OEs and NGEs agreed that the founder played the role of the advisor and key decision maker. However, most also felt that they gave the professionals enough empowerment to take decisions. Promoters, despite claims of delegation and empowerment, continue to hold high power based on control over financial and other resources. Under such environment in family businesses, EEs often seek legitimacy for their actions through internal norms. In younger organisations where such norms are inadequate, NML is experienced. However, in older organisations, intensity of NML reduces significantly as norms and systems get developed. In one of the organisations, the promoter stated, “I have been creating systems and norms in the company. These systems leave little scope for NML.”

Previous research indicates that often, EEs may hesitate to take decisions, even if they have been given the freedom to do so. By training and grooming, most of them are not encouraged to take critical decisions involving reasonably high stakes and their risk taking appetite is likely to be lower than that of the OE. Their preparedness to face failures is limited because of the possible long-term implications of any failure to their career, which they

can ill-afford. The level of hesitation may be higher in small as compared to big family run enterprises. This is because the OEs’ level of involvement in day to day activities and decision making will be higher in small as compared to big businesses, where systems and processes are well in place. Moreover, in large or rapidly growing organisations, the distinction between deciding strategy and its execution, lessens simply by virtue of the sheer scale and complexity of operations.

As in the case of synchronising passion, it is the responsibility of the OEs to design procedures and mechanisms to encourage and force EEs to take decisions. One OE believed, “Thoughts are the sources. They need to be valued…”

However, not only do systems and processes need to be strengthened, but also EEs must be given reason to believe that OEs will stand by them and guide them in case of any errors in decision making.

EEs’ Capabilities The ability to manage NML through empowerment of EEs would essentially require high professionalism. The study done by Amrop International, discussed earlier, revealed that the challenge for family managed organisations lies in OEs’ handling their working style, putting transparent performance management systems in place and institutionalising decision-making processes without diminishing the key attractions, such as speed of decision-making and scope for experimentation.

Professionalism may mean different things to the OE and EE. For instance, when asked about what professionalism means to an OE, he replied:“Professionalism to me implies the ability to let go, introspect, Indianness and open mindedness…”

While the OEs may believe they are running the company professionally, the EEs may have different opinion. The perceptions of each, in turn, will determine the attitude and behaviour towards the company and work per se. Well-aligned orientation, goals and vision of OEs, NGEs and EEs will reduce the intensity of NML in organisations. To determine differences in perception towards the meaning of professionalism, NGEs, OEs

Figure 16: Empowerment? (on a scale of 5)

4.8

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


3.84.3

Page 22


and EEs were asked questions pertaining to different parameters of professionalism. The value that the three groups assigned to each of the parameters is reflected in figure 17:OEs value leadership the most, giving it a clear 5 rating on average, whereas the other groups trail slightly lower. This could be possibly explained by the greater average time spent in leadership by OEs versus that for NGEs and EEs, which allows OEs to appreciate and value leadership as a key facet of professionalism as compared to the other groups.

Any mismatch in orientation deserves more attention from both sides in order to create a mutually acceptable view on all parameters, thus minimising the NML.

All the groups have a similar total score on different parameters of professionalism. However, an overall score of 7.4 on professionalism indicates, that EEs need to reorient themselves to be more professional. Business schools, engineering colleges and

other professional institutions will have to reflect on their training content and processes to improve the score on professionalism of executives.

We explored the question about the competencies that were sought by family managed firms, while hiring managers at top managerial positions. This indicates the strategic direction in which the firms would like to move in the future. This is a strategic issue and carries significant implications for NML in these firms.

In this study, OEs perceived the right technical capability to be very crucial for their success, whereas EEs and even NGEs gave it relatively lower importance. This indicates that OEs believe that execution of their strategic plan requires higher technical capability of EEs. Interestingly, all OEs, NGEs and EEs look for high leadership capabilities in EEs at top managerial positions. In fact, in the context of professionalism, OEs rated leadership as one of the most important indicators of a professional.

The urge for leadership among the NGEs and EEs is so high that they value technical capability requirement lower than that by OEs. Hence, the intensity of NML in these firms will reduce over a period of time. However, currently there seems to be an expectation mismatch between OEs, NGEs and EEs.

On an important parameter of integrity, OEs and NGEs carry no compromise with a score of 5. However, EEs’ score was 4.5. This is also an indication of preparedness of OEs and NGEs to empower EEs and thus the required high trust in them. However, some of the EEs still believe that such empowerment may take some time.

Figure 18: Professionalism Score. (on a scale of 10)

7.3

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


7.67.4

Figure 17: Perception towards the meaning of professionalism (on a scale of 5)

4.8

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


4.34.6

4.5 3.34.2

4.5 3.34.2

5.0 3.94.2

People Orientation

Transperancy

StakeholderOrientation

Leadership

Page 23


On another important parameter of Humility, the overall rating is 3.6. EEs believe that this score should be high (4) as compared to the same for OEs and NGEs at 3.8 and 3.3 respectively. The delicate balance between business system and family system requires extremely high sensitivity among the EEs and they rate humility high. However, this challenge is not perceived high by NGEs. As NGEs begin to get ready for leadership positions in these firms, they will have to realise this need. The prevailing gap between NGEs and EEs on this account might lead to higher NML in years to come unless addressed soon. Similar difference is seen on the important parameter of vision and mission congruity. The group as a whole rated 3.9 for mission and vision congruity. NGEs trended a little lower than average, at 3.6, while EEs and OEs were somewhat higher at 4 and 4.4 respectively. Business acumen seemed to be a unifying theme, for all the sub-groups in rating the capability of EEs. All the subgroups seemed to find business acumen as a defining quality for EEs on average. The average group rating was 4.5. All three groups rated team orientation ability high. On entrepreneurial skills, which received a group average rating of 3.8, EEs seemed to give it lesser importance than OEs and NGEs. EEs continue to perceive themselves in the execution role. They do not visualise themselves into entrepreneurial activities.

However, the expectation of OEs on this account is higher. Unless addressed, this could lead to NML in organisations.

There are differences in importance given to effective change management and approachability, as capabilities, with OEs again rating both these capabilities the highest and EEs, the lowest. OEs clearly have expectations that EEs should be effective change managers as well as approachable, whereas EEs don’t have similar perceptions, more so with regards to change management. Interestingly, while NGEs gave it substantial importance, one of the NGEs mentioned,“Some people are very comfortable with me in my professional role, some are not so comfortable.”

Ethical business practice also reflects differences in the thinking, which in turn can impact attitudes. Interestingly, while the group average rating is 4.7, EEs perceive it to be extremely important, rating it a perfect 5. OEs rate it the lowest at 4.2. However, the overall score is very high. NGEs and EEs seem to be extremely concerned on this account and are unwilling to compromise at all. OEs, due to their higher number of years in leadership roles, are concerned about the environmental challenges, yet, they want highest level of ethical business practises. During the study, one of the OEs stated:“I ask everyone here not to get terrorised by inspectors from various

4.5 3.6 3.8

Figure 19a: Competencies sought for hiring at Top Management Level? (on a scale of 5)

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


Right Technical Capability

Leadership and Respect

Integrity

Humillity

4.4 4.3 4.5

5 4.5 5

3.8 4 4.3

4.4 4 3.6

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


Mission Congruity

Business Acumen

Entrepreneurial Skills

Team Orientation

4.2 4 4.8

4 3 4

4.6 4 4.4

Page 24


Government departments. I ask them to be extremely transparent and follow the laws of the land completely.” Diplomacy is not rated high by any of the groups. It is relatively rated highest by NGEs and lowest by OE’s. On the other hand, process orientation sees OEs placing somewhat more importance than EEs and NGEs. This might indicate that EEs do not perceive process orientation to be as important as OEs would want them to. This shows that OEs are willing to empower EEs and exercise control through processes in organisations. Experience scored relatively low on average as a desired capability for EEs (3.4). Further, EEs gave it least importance while NGEs gave it maximum importance as a capability. One of the EEs stated:“In family managed firms, professionals can expect to grow very fast as OEs are willing to pass on large responsibilities to capable and energetic managers at an early stage of their career. I became head of Finance and Account Function at the Group level. I was preferred over many senior colleagues. Such decisions are possible in family managed companies. Having received such recognition, I stayed back with the group all through my early career. ”

All groups rated clear communication to be an important capability with OEs giving it maximum importance as compared

to the other groups.

In addition to the 16 capabilities discussed above, one NGE counted aggression and execution to be important qualities in EEs. It would be worthwhile for the OEs and EEs to appreciate these underlying differences and use that as the basis to manage NML.

Conflict Between Family and Business SystemsFamily expectations and business demands often result in conflict and NML. All businesses demand well-trained and capable executives to fill management roles in the firm. However, most parents see their offspring as capable and their logic is simple: “we own a family business that needs people and my child requires a job.” In one company, an NGE narrated, “Businesses were planned for distribution among the two sons.”

Next-generation career is potentially a source of misunderstanding and stress, thus leading to NML. This study indicates that incidences of NML owing to this are low. Family managed firms have discovered ways to manage the two systems simultaneously. The report so far has discussed the various factors that lead to NML. The concluding chapter focuses on strategies to manage NML.

3.8 2.8 3.3

Figure 19b: Competencies sought for hiring at Top Management Level? (on a scale of 5)

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


Effective Change Management

Approachable

Ethical Business Practice

Passion

4.6 3.8 4.3

4.2 5 4.8

4.8 4.3 4.8

2.8 3 3.7

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


Diplomacy

Process Orientation

Experience

Clear Communication

4.2 3.3 3.6

3.2 2.8 3.8

4.4 4 4.1

Page 25

Strategies to Manage No Man’s Land

NML is bound to exist to a greater or lesser extent in any organisation. This is likely to be so, due to differences in thinking, beliefs and perceptions of different individuals. The owner has his own perceptions about what is important for his company, the NGE has his own (though they may be influenced by family thinking to a certain extent) and the professional executive, who has no relationship with the owner except for professional relationship, brings in his own values, attributes and cognition to the company, thus influencing the work environment in his own way. Hence, the views of OE and EE will differ on various issues. The NGEs in this study showed similarity in thinking on some aspects with the OEs and on others, with the EEs. This primarily owes to the fact that the NGEs of today, are joining their family businesses, after having obtained the required professional qualification or training and so understand as well as show, an increasing preference for professional management of their company. However, due to the family environment and culture they were brought up in and influence of their parents, they still think similar to their parents on some issues, especially when it comes to the issues of loyalty and passion for the company and leadership, as seen in this study.

The previous study done by Amrop International found that NML did exist in companies. Moreover, passion for the business was one issue on which EEs and OEs differed, since passion of OEs was much higher than EEs. This is one place that the findings of this study differ. While all did believe that EE could not be more passionate than the OE about the company, as many as 58% participants from all 3 groups believed that the passion was same. This can be explained by the fact that all the EEs in this study had very long associations with their respective company and most were in senior management positions. Secondly, the companies in this study are also well established and reputed and run quite professionally. Perhaps because of this, there is congruence of all the three groups on mission and vision, leading to lower NML as compared to the previous study. More research needs to be done to establish the link between the company size, reputation, hiring procedures, professional attainment of the company and NML.

One strong point of agreement between the study done by Amrop International and this study is, that in order to reduce NML, it is most crucial for owners to focus on securing the external executive’s buy-in, so that their own approach and style is aligned to an enterprise wide agenda. The strategies to reduce

NML are reflected in this chapter. These are:•Clarity of roles•Strong governance•Handling succession at top positions

Clarity of RoleClarity of roles is frequently seen as an effective response to NML. This research also demonstrates how attributes such as knowledge, values, and beliefs influence manager’s perceptions and priorities, thus decision-making. Domination, power differentiation and novelty as well as inconsistency in decisions by an owner add to creation of NML.

To minimise role conflict, and thus NML, two types of views were taken by OEs in this study. These related to:•Comprehensive involvement of OE and little discretion to EEs•Complete empowerment of EEs

When asked about NML, OE in one of the companies stated:“There is no NML here. I take all the decisions here.”

In another company, the OE stated:“I am hands-on here. I visit the work place almost every day and take a review of performance. Hence there is little room for NML in my Group.”

However this approach puts constraints on organisational growth, as OEs would be left with little time for decisions relating to Growth and exploitation of business opportunities. Another OE shared this when he stated:“I used to take all the important decisions till two years back. I have started withdrawing.”

A trend of separation of ownership and management is observed in the study. In this study, at least 4 companies’ OEs/NGEs mentioned that the management was completely transferred to professionals. In one of the companies, an EE said, “Promoters have delegated the responsibility of managing the organisation to professionals. They seek alternatives/options from managers. Their suggestions are sought. Rarely decisions from the top are imposed. Hence risk-taking appetite of the managers is high. They are not scolded for genuine mistakes.”

Page 26


It is vital for EEs to align their style of functioning with family members, especially when many family members are involved in the business. EEs also need to have clarity on the extent of family involvement and should be clear about whom all in the family are they answerable to. EEs who clearly define the limits to their relationship with other family members will be more comfortable.

While some owners choose to have many family members involved in the family business, others may choose not to. As one OE stated:“In my company, family members have no operational role. They cannot be held accountable owing to relationship risk.”

Interestingly, in the same company, one EE stated:“Professionals want family members to enter into business. However the Chairman does not want it to happen.”

Empowerment of EEs could potentially lead to disaster in the absence of governance. The adequate governance mechanisms ensure minimisation of NML in organisations. However, it raises another potentially risky issue. How to manage the career aspirations of NGEs? In some of the firms, NGEs were destined to occupy the leadership positions. In other firms, NGEs struggled to justify their involvement in business as CEO roles were handed over to EEs. This potential risk is addressed in few firms by involving NGEs in creating new businesses and managing them.

Governance Governance in the context of companies consists of a set of processes, policies, structure, culture and laws that affect the way people respond effectively in the larger institutional interests. Governance mechanisms ensure the accountability of key members and thus have an extremely crucial role to play in the running and growth of any company/institution.

Governance structure is composed of four pillars:Key Systems: This includes development of appropriate systems for smooth running of the organisation. Appropriate Hiring, Staffing and Growth of Key Personnel, and Performance Management Systems, have a crucial role to play in ensuring minimal NML. Hiring at the top level should ensure that the values and mission of those hired are congruent with that of the company.

Organisational Structure: This defines the role, responsibility, reporting relationship and communication system within the organisation. Four major aspects of the organisational structure that need to be considered include •Centralisation: This indicates the extent of centralisation of

decision-making powers within organisations.•Formalisation: It defines how the level of formality in

various components of decision-making units is created in organisations.

•Vertical Differentiation: This refers to the hierarchy within organisations.

•Horizontal Differentiation: This refers to the differentiation based on functions and specialisations.

Too much or too little of each of the centralisation, Formalisation and vertical differentiation can be problematic and therefore, optimal level of each is most conducive, and this is what the OE should strive to achieve.

Appointing Key Personnel: People in key roles like members of the crucial decision-making bodies and top administrative positions play an important role in the governance of any Institution. Hence, appointing experienced and appropriate people, whether NGEs or EEs, in these roles is extremely important.

Organisational Culture: Culture is an intrinsic mechanism of an organisation that governs the behaviour of its members. A strong and appropriate culture creates an invisible control over the people, which is beneficial to the organisation. Appropriate governance ensures NML is kept under control and organisations are protected from possible shirking of responsibilities by the EEs at the top managerial positions.

It was observed during the study, that following are some of the governance mechanisms that have been employed by organisations in this study. Closer examination of these mechanisms shows that all the four pillars of governance discussed above are addressed in some way or the other in the following:•Creating Governance Structure•Aligning Family Plan and Business Plan•Creating Norms, Rules and Systems•Careful Selection of Personnel for Leadership Roles

Page 27


•Creating Unifying Culture •Open Communication between OEs, NGEs and EEs

In view of the relevance of the above mechanisms to reduce NML, each of these has been explained separately below, citing suitable examples.

Governance StructureAs discussed earlier in the report, boards of family managed firms are constantly being strengthened. Members in the board are constantly encouraged to ask probing questions. In a company the OE and NGE stated:“We consider the views of board members very seriously. We have persuaded some of the top professionals of the Country to be in our Board.”

EE in the same company stated:“OEs and NGEs take active part in board meetings. It helps us to get assured on our strategic directions through our presentations and comments in the board. Other members of the board are also very active. Their views are considered very seriously.”

However, functioning of the board is not strong in all the companies. In family managed businesses, many a times, the board acts just like a rubber stamp, which is not in the best interest of the company. In this study, as many as 58% of the respondents agreed that the board was more like a rubber stamp. One EE stated:“Our board is a rubber stamp. Here, ego overrules and dissent is not encouraged. Family issues are causing problems”

While lesser number of OEs believed it to be true, as many as 52% NGEs believed it to be true. This shows a positive trend, because if the NGEs realise that the board is weak, being owners of the company, they can make efforts to strengthen the board. One of the NGEs opined:“Board should be made more active, and only qualified family members should be there in the board.”

Further, the family managed organisations also confront family system. To balance the family system issues and business issues, firms actively constitute a team of people either formally or informally. In one company, a formally constituted Family Council exists. The EE who is the member of the council stated:

“The Family Council consists of OE, three NGEs and me. We discuss all the important matters, including family system issues candidly in this meeting.”

In another organisation an informal sounding board exists. The OE stated:“Whenever I confront a challenge, including family system challenges, I freely discuss these matters with some of the professionals. These professionals are highly respected in the country. They always give me sincere advice.”

Aligning Family Plan and Business Plan OEs and NGEs need to carefully plan out how to align the family and business plan. They also need to have clarity on how much they want to invest in other businesses or on business expansion or whether they want to sell their business. Thus, they must be clear on their business strategy: invest, hold, harvest or sell. This in turn will determine their growth path and extent of family involvement they would want in the business.

When asked about the role, a very popular and well respected NGE had taken, the EE narrated:“The OE had divided the responsibility between three sons. There are no issues with an NGE heading this business. He believes that either you lead from the front and be a role model or be out of business after setting the targets. He respects professionals and believes that professionalism and merit bring respect. Business matters and family issues are discussed in Apex Body where decisions are made to close the issue.”

Creating Norms, Rules and SystemsAs discussed earlier, most OEs and NGEs agreed that the founder played the role of the advisor and key decision maker. However, most also felt that they gave the professionals enough empowerment to take decisions. Promoters, despite claims of delegation and empowerment, continue to hold high power through control over financial and other resources. Under such environment in family businesses EEs often seek legitimacy for their actions through internal norms. In younger organisations such norms could be inadequate. However, in older organisations, intensity of NML reduces significantly as norms and systems get developed. In one of the organisations, the promoter stated:“I have been creating systems and norms in the company. These systems leave little scope for NML.”

Page 28


An OE stated:“I have defined financial limits for managers to decide on all expenses that are non-recurrent. For recurrent expenses, my prior approval is required irrespective of size of expenses.”

Some of the systems that are carefully designed from governance perspective are Hiring, Staffing and Growth of Key Personnel, Performance Management System (PMS), Management Information System (MIS), Purchase Systems and Budgeting and Accounting System (BAS).

The study done by Amrop International, discussed earlier, revealed that the challenge for family managed firms lies in OEs’ handling of their working style, putting transparent performance management systems in place and institutionalising decision-making processes, without diminishing the key attractions, such as speed of decision-making and scope for experimentation.

Careful selection of people in leadership roles To overcome the risk of shirking and NML, firms need to select personnel for top managerial positions carefully. As discussed earlier in the report, firms prefer persons with following capabilities for top managerial positions:

1. Integrity and ethical business practises2. Team work and leadership skills3. Mission and vision congruity4. Business acumen5. Passion 6. Communication ability

The thrust on this could be assessed from the following statement of an EE:“We wait patiently for the right candidate for top management position. At times it takes more than a year for identifying and appointing such a person. However, we never compromise on the capability and commitment of a person for leadership role.”It is natural that organisations that want to be professionally managed will look for right candidates. However, why do professionals join family run companies? In this study, perceptions of all the three groups were sought on what they believed EEs valued most - high compensation, company brand, professional growth, caring approach or inter collegial environment. All the measurements are in figure 20 below.

Interestingly, while most EEs believed that, they were not swayed by high compensation, most NGEs and OEs felt that this mattered to EEs. In the opinion of EEs, even company brand did not hold much relevance. This may be true to quite some extent because if the brand did matter, they would have sought jobs in bigger multinationals. The OEs and EEs opinion was congruent on this, though NGEs believed that brand does matter.

Professional growth, caring approach and collegial environment were important for EEs and the NGEs shared this view. One EE stated: “Families run at individual level, MNCs at Institutional level. In the former, people are recognised well and cared for.”

Figure 20: Why do professionals join family family run companies? (on a scale of 5)

2.5

OwnerExecutive

ExternalExecutive


2.61.7

2.9 3.33

2.9 3.53.3

2.9 3.53.3

High Compensation

Company Brand

Professional Growth

Caring Approach

2.9 2.93Inter Collegial Environment

Page 29


Another EE stated: “Family businesses provide a growth oriented environment, higher tolerance and have an organic character.”

Creating unifying culture Organisational Culture, which is the intrinsic mechanism of an organisation, governs the behaviour of all its members. A strong and appropriate culture creates an invisible control over the people, which is beneficial to the company.

The perceptions, that the owners as well as employees carry about the business, and the manner in which it is being run, is another area that creates NML. This is because the perception that one holds towards the other and towards work will in turn determine the attitude and behaviour towards the same. If the views of both, the owners and executives, are well aligned on the positive and negative aspects of the family business, it is conducive. The value congruence of EEs with organisations is critical for managing NML. Values create invisible control over the thinking of people. People are guided by the philosophy and values of the organisations. This is a challenging area. As many OEs stated:“EEs (especially those who are not in one of the senior positions) are likely to adopt a more short-term outlook in dealing with their work as they rarely plan to stay long in an organisation. They do not value jobs. They change jobs fast.”

To achieve value congruence, organisations create many rituals, metaphors and practises. EEs in a company mentioned that the family members believed in rituals and in celebrating important festivals together to enhance relationships with the EEs. For instance, one OE stated:“We follow the Laxmi Saraswati Durga Model as part of our organisational culture due to which employees prefer our company. This implies sharing wealth, providing scope for intellectual growth and recognition and empowerment. Key cultural aspects in my business are that I am never the Chairman of the Board. People do not want to dissent with the OE and we believe that dialogue is important for churning out something new. Hence, I do not assume the role of Chairman in the boards of my group companies.”

In another company, an EE opined,“CEOs are given freedom to act. They are driven by values, vision, and strategy and core competence. OE and EEs work closely in execution.

Moreover, an environment is created that enables people to achieve results. Leadership also plays a role.”

For a company to prosper the core ideology, especially values and purpose of the OE, NGE and EE should be congruent. The ideologies of the EEs must be understood by OEs right at the time of hiring to ensure congruence. However, the inverse should also hold true. It is only then that the company will boast of a culture that is healthy for all. A successful OE will be one; who understands what is important to his people and develop a culture that is conducive to attaining those values. One such OE shared his secret of success. Signifying such importance of values, the OE in that company stated: “Subjects of Humanities need to be valued. They contribute to the strengthening of the right brain. Both sides of the brain are important for effective management. Management schools currently emphasise primarily on the left brain based analytical abilities.”

Open communication between Owner, External and Next Generation ExecutivesCommunication helps in bringing in greater transparency by clearing misunderstandings and conveying one’s point of view to the other. Such open communication, also helps in creating unifying culture. Thus, regular meetings and discussions between all sides are extremely important to manage NML.

In this study, all the OEs, NGEs and EEs believed communication to be an important skill for EEs to possess. Organisationally, multiple mechanisms for communication are important. For instance, an NGE of one company said:“Actions to increase communication with EEs include Chairperson’s lunch once every month. All the top managers come and meet, and all the issues are discussed in such informal setting.”

When discussing about NML, one of the EEs mentioned that NML was low because the NGE who was running the business had earned high respect from the employees, and was a good leader, especially because of his open communication. He further stated:“He is transparent with bankers and financial institutions too. He has high credibility.”

The manner in which the OE or NGE communicates also has a bearing on the relationship between the EE and OE/NGE and hence on NML. For instance, in one company, an EE mentioned

Page 30


that the NGE was really appreciated for his open communication and leadership skills. The NGE was heading the technology Department. He said, “Technology failed. Some executives took the responsibility and offered to resign. The NGE said, ‘ You all have the option to go. However, where will I go? Please stay back. Let us build it together again.’ ”

Such open communication and creation of a secure environment can work well to diminish NML.

Constant communication, whether through phone calls, web conferences, or evening meetings should take place between OEs, NGEs and EEs. Monthly / Bimonthly meetings between OEs and senior EEs, wherein business plans, strategy and progress are discussed, is crucial. Moreover, communication should not be extremely formal or one sided. Both sides should be equal participants in speaking as well as listening.

Handling Succession Concerns Often family managed firms give precedence to socioemotional wealth over economic wealth considerations. For instance, during discussions, one of the NGEs stated:“I was destined to join the business. I was never briefed about it but I knew about it since childhood. I did not even remotely consider any other professional career for myself.”

Similarly, another NGE also shared:“I never thought of any other career. I knew that I would be in business.”

If such events are recognised and accepted right from the beginning, problems leading to NML will be minimised. For instance, in one business group, a CEO (EE):“Recently, chairman called me to inform that he wanted his son to be the successor. I shared this news to the professional who was seen as my successor till then. He accepted it as fait accompli. He was of the view that one had to report to a family person at some stage of the career in family managed firms.”

Inability of EEs to appreciate such concerns in decision-making at the time of succession planning often adds to NML. On the other hand, EEs who are able to accept that they may never be CEO

of the company they work for, as in the case described above, will find themselves in a comfort zone, in which the area under NML will be minimised. Simultaneously, it remains a challenge for NGEs to get acceptance among the professionals. One of the NGEs stated that some EEs were comfortable with him, while others were not.

Hence, the manner in which the NGE is groomed, has a bearing on the NML in the company. If the NGE enters the business after obtaining the relevant qualifications and climbs the corporate ladder as a regular employee would, it is more likely that he will be professionally well equipped to take on the role of the OE and will be better accepted and respected by EEs. Such an NGE will also run the company more professionally and be conscious of areas where NML can exist.

In conclusion, Amrop International conducted an earlier study into No Man’s Land (NML) and found significant presence of NML in the relationship dynamic between two groups of stakeholders, OEs and EEs. Now Amrop India has conducted a follow up study of NML in the tripartite relationship dynamic between three groups of stakeholders, first generation owner executives (OE), next generation executives (NGE) and external executives (EE). The results of this study suggest that NML prevalence has diminished and is less significant in the context of relationship dynamic between NGE and EE versus the original dynamic relationship between OE and EE. The study indicates that NGEs are more sensitive to the existence of NML and are more responsive to needs of EEs.

Page 31

About Amrop

About AmropAmrop is a leading global firm focused on helping its clients build their businesses by finding leaders adept at working across borders, in markets around the world. A team of over 300 senior partners in 84 offices across 56 countries, serve clients directly. Amrop has an entrepreneurial structure and follows the Context Driven Approach, which inherently focuses on clients and their special requirements. It is the largest model of its kind. This model along with our global network allows us to place our clients’ interests first.

About Amrop IndiaAmrop India, established in 1995, pioneered the professional and systematic approach to Executive Search in India. Today Amrop is a leading brand in India known for its Leadership Consulting model built on our services in Executive Search, Board Consulting, External Succession and Management Assessment. The Amrop brand spells trust in the ‘world of leaders’. Be it board rooms, owners, chairmen as well as CEOs and senior leaders.

Amrop India’s work in leadership consulting mirrors the journey of the private enterprise in India. Apart from partnering with clients in their India growth, our practice took on worldwide scope with the onset of globalisation of Indian corporations. India practice leads with, a team of 25 partners, consultants and research associates through its offices in New Delhi (Gurgaon) and Mumbai. Known for its Delivery DNA, Amrop’ s success platform is through expertise, a high quality team and an entrepreneurial approach to partnering with clients.

About Amrop InsightsAmrop’s extensive work in Leadership consulting across sectors and functions offers an unmatched opportunity for learning. In line with our vision to be a knowledge based Leadership consulting firm, we strive to build knowledge and perspective with intent to

1. Provide sharp insights in our work 2. Share with clients our publications.

Our repertoire of publications, touch on a number of relevant leadership topics in general context of management practises as well as in the context of Indian milieu.

Page 32

Amrop Global Offices

Americas

ArgentinaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaEcuadorMexicoPanamaPeruUnited StatesVenezuela

EMEA

AngolaAustriaBelgiumCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungary

EMEA

IndiaIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaMoroccoNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomania

EMEA

Russia FederationSaudi ArabiaSerbiaSlovakiaSloveniaSouth AfricaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUkraine

Asia Pacific

AustraliaChinaIndonesiaJapanKorea SouthMalaysiaPhilippinesSingaporeThailandVietnam

©2013 Amrop India Consultants Private Limited. All rights reserved.

New Delhi Office: Global Business Park, 7th Floor, Tower B, M.G Road, Gurgaon 122002, T: +91 124 4344700 Mumbai Office: The Capital, 905A, 9th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, 400051, T: +91 22 66424600 W www.amrop.in

For feedback and additional copies feel free to contact us at: [email protected]

relationship dynamics between owners and ceos€¦ · in this ground-breaking study, ......

Documents