It is useful to ponder whether leaders make history or history makes leaders. What is sure is that history does not recognise leaders in the way that leaders think they are making history. If it were possible to speak with the dead, imagine what Jack Welch or Jawaharlal Nehru would say about my statement. It is tough to get to the top. It is tougher to stay on top. But it is the toughest to vacate the top. Leaders who experience scrambling up, and then staying on top sometimes falter on this toughest of tests.
I once travelled as an assistant for a top leader during his tour of India. Being young and curious, I asked how he could be sure that he had selected the right leader after him. He responded, “I do not know—not until the successor to the person I selected has performed.”
At that time, his response seemed puzzling. The coin dropped for me much later. Maybe one leader’s performance is a flash, maybe his successor’s too, but if the third generation is performing, then the system of leadership planning has probably been institutionalised. This anecdote symbolises how a long-term view must be taken when it comes to leadership planning, renewal and succession.
Recall that Chandragupta Maurya created the Mauryan empire, his son Bindusara strengthened it and Bindusara’s son Ashoka expanded it rapidly before adopting pacifist Buddhism. Ashoka stayed 37 years in his role; the decline and end of the Mauryan empire began with his death.
Louis XIV was king of France for 72 years. He surely strengthened France, but left it severely in debt. When he died, the kingdom was left in the hands of his five-year-old great-grandson who became Louis XV. There was a steep decline of royal authority leading up to the French Revolution.
Ayatollah Khamenei had ruled Iran since 1989, Yoweri Museveni has ruled Uganda since 1986, and Hun Sen ruled Cambodia from 1985 till recently. It will be instructive to observe the condition of these nations after the tenures of these longtime rulers come to an end.
When it comes to companies, it is my observation that a tenure of 10 years—maybe at the most 20 years—is appropriate for one leader. There are exceptions, of course, and my observation must be seen merely as a personal one. After some time, the law of diminishing returns starts to take effect on leadership.
Did Jack Welch stay five years too long at GE? On the other hand, did Lou Gerstner retire with excellent timing after rescuing an ailing IBM? CEO Alan Lafley steered Procter & Gamble creditably after the short, not-so-memorable leadership of his predecessor; could he have avoided becoming board chairman after being CEO for 10 years? Bob Iger had a fabulous run as CEO at Disney, but remained on the board only to return as CEO three years later. If this yardstick was applied to the success of their successor’s successor, then how should one view these facts? The subjects of how to select the next leader and how a leader reads his expiry date in a role—both deserve separate commentaries.
The discipline of an institution lies in having and implementing a clear retirement policy. Top leaders should also prepare to avoid being hangers-on in one capacity or another. I received my initial training at Hindustan Unilever, which I joined 56 years ago. From Prakash Tandon in 1967 to Rohit Jawa in 2023, the company has had seven CEOs with an average tenure of eight years. Systematic change in leadership helps the company to renew.
Tata Consultancy, Tata Steel and Titan have enough management bandwidth to allow orderly CEO change every 10 years or less. Further, it is true that such CEOs are hugely valuable at the time of retirement. Almost in all cases, such CEOs are able to redirect their experience and judgement in new directions upon retirement. This renews the company as well as the retiring CEO.
Upon retiring from Hindustan Unilever, Prakash Tandon became chairman of State Trading Corporation and Punjab National Bank. Ashok Ganguly joined the Unilever board; thereafter, he became an independent director of British Airways, followed by a stint in the Rajya Sabha. Recently, Sanjiv Mehta retired and became an independent director of Tata-owned Air India, French dairy company Danone, and Unilever Indonesia.
ALSO READ| Three commandments for corporate leaders
Several Tata CEOs have also had fruitful post-retirement occupations: S Ramadorai, former CEO of Tata Consultancy, became an independent director at Hindustan Unilever and Piramal, apart from being chairman of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai and Kalakshetra Foundation in Chennai. B Muthuraman retired from Tata Steel and held independent directorship at Sundram Fasteners, apart from a deep engagement with advancing management education. Homi Khusrokhan served as board member in some companies, school boards and clubs.
Vacating the top spot requires humility. Rabindranath Tagore wrote a relevant verse, though not about leaders’ tenures. My translation of the Bengali original is, “‘Who will assume my tasks?’, asked the majestic setting sun. Upon hearing this grave question, the world was speechless and silent. A wick lamp spoke up quietly, ‘My Lord, within my small capacity, I think I can help’.”
The lesson I have learnt is that today’s CEO is a wick lamp to an earlier CEO. Do not forget to nurture the wick lamps under your blaze.
(Views are personal)
(rgopal@themindworks.me)
Blurb: Leaving the top spot requires humility. A Tagore verse says: “Who will assume my tasks? asked the majestic setting sun. Upon hearing this grave question, the world was silent. A wick lamp spoke up, My lord, within my small capacity, I think I can help.” CEOs need to nurture the wick lamps under their blaze
R Gopalakrishnan, Author and business commentator. His fifty-year professional career was spent in Hindustan Unilever and Tata Group