Relationship with the successor

Increased success of one’s successor should be a matter of pride for any retired chairman of a business enterprise

Having retired a quarter century ago from active management of business enterprises, but still active as an investor, mentoring the management of a few medium-sized business, I feel tempted to share some views on successor relationship. This is an issue every manager has to face as he moves up the ladder in any organisation. Your are always tempted to find out how your successor is doing in the job you have left and, more importantly, how the wider circle of managers in the company is comparing you with your successor, both in terms of conduct and performance. This is true even if you are promoted to a position where your successor will be reporting to you. While you are happy that you have been in a position to select and install a successor of your choice, you can be curious or even anxious to assess whether that person is undoing things you have done or even gaining exceptional acclaim for his/her effort in improving the performance of the organisation. It is only human. Depending on the type of person you are, you either feel proud or jealous. Or you can migrate from pride to jealousy over time. Mature and sensible people tend to be proud of the success of their chosen successors, just as they would be of the performance of their children.

The other side of the coin is the behaviour of the successor. He can either be loyal and appreciative of his predecessor or he can set out to show off how much more competent he is compared to that person, even to the extent of fabricating stories about that person’s tenure at the helm or by casting aspersions on his or her personal life. The callous assumption is that by running down one’s predecessor one’s position and reputation are enhanced.

There are plenty of examples of these phenomena in all walks of life — business, politics sports etc. Of course, there are rare examples where the predecessor’s performance was so poor compared with that of the successor that the latter did not have to make any special claim. I was fortunate to have this experience in the first job I had as a young man. When my expatriate senior had gone on furlough three months, I was given the responsibility of our small department. It inspired me to work hard, sometimes 16 hours a day, and achieve results not only in terms of improved performance but also in terms of acceptance by workers and managers. It set me on the path of further advancement in the organisation.

That brings us to the current debate about the conflict between founders and the current management of Infosys — a vivid example of the successor relationship. Without any personal knowledge of the individuals involved, I shall venture to present some suggestions.

Both N Narayana Murthy and Vishal Sikka are mature, successful businessmen, having experience in dealing with difficult and hostile circumstances. Instead of seeking mediators and consultants, they might find it useful to meet each other at an early date. Even though Sikka has resigned and relocated to the USA, it is in the interests of everyone concerned at Infosys and the wider Indian entrepreneur community that a reconciliation takes place between these two individuals, who are both icons of the Indian information technology (IT) industry. Murthy, being the senior of the two, could take the initiative of arranging such a meeting. Perhaps, a salubrious location near the San Francisco Bay Area, away from the inevitable glare in India, would be appropriate. There, no one would take note of two middle-aged Indians having a long lunch or dinner and taking a walk on the beach. Now that Sikka has hopefully settled down into a new assignment, he should have no objection to meeting Murthy as an erstwhile colleague. Both should accept that there will be no reversal of the recent changes in the management of Infosys.

In preparation for the meeting, each of them should put down on paper what they feel about both sides of the conflict. Murthy and Sikka should deliberate and put down on paper their respective assessments of each side’s views. That process would help assuage feelings. Sikka would be able to purge any regrets on having to leave Infosys and take it up as a challenge to succeed even more in the wider world of IT business opportunities available in the Bay Area. Judging from the way he has conducted himself, the chances of his succeeding in this effort are high. Eventually, he may end up with a much greater fortune and job satisfaction than he would have achieved in the second-ranking IT company in a county like India, whose economy and IT business are only a fraction of comparable parameter to that of the USA. He is still young enough to dare. From personal experience, I can vouch that some events, which initially appear to be disastrous, can turn out to be blessings in the long run.

Murthy, on the other hand, has to reflect on how his actions have dented the reputation and morale of the iconic company he helped build. He is a big enough man to do so and can help the management of Infosys by trying to instil confidence in itself while resisting any temptation to interfere in the dayto-day operations. It is a difficult and delicate task as I know from my somewhat longer business career. It is always a temptation to continue to scrutinise the performance of the company you had left to your successor. You can either take pride in the company under your chosen successor doing even better than it did in your time or feel jealous of your successor. The wiser course would be to share the pride and joy of your successor in achieving greater success for the company. Only an insecure person would feel otherwise. In other words, increased success of one’s successor should be a matter of pride for any retired chairman of a business enterprise.