Tata Sons: Power, Governance, and Leadership in a Trust-Controlled Conglomerate
Authors
Dr LRK Krishnan
Visiting Professor (OB/HR, ER & LL) IIM Kashipur & SB University (IN)
S Shreya Krishnan
Oracle Inc. USA (US)
Sashreek Krishnan
Carnegie Mellon University, USA (US)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150300041
Subject Category: Leadership
Volume/Issue: 15/3 | Page No: 501-505
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-04-09
Published: 2026-04-09
Abstract
In October 2016, Tata Sons found itself at the centre of an unexpected leadership crisis when Cyrus P. Mistry was removed as Chairman. What followed was not just a corporate dispute, but one of the most widely debated governance episodes in modern Indian business. The situation offers a compelling lens to understand how power, leadership, ownership, and institutional structures interact within large business groups (Chakrabarti et al., 2008; Tricker, 2019).
Tata Sons represents a distinctive organizational form. Unlike many global corporations, it operates as a professionally managed conglomerate with a majority ownership held by philanthropic trusts. This arrangement has historically supported long-term thinking and ethical governance, but it also creates complex and sometimes ambiguous lines of authority between trustees, board members, executives, and minority shareholders (Khanna & Palepu, 2010; OECD, 2015). Recent work suggests that such hybrid ownership models can be both a strength and a source of governance tension, particularly in emerging market contexts (Singh & Delios, 2023).
What makes the Tata–Mistry episode particularly significant is how several forces converged at once—leadership succession, concentrated ownership, and boardroom dynamics—each reinforcing the other. Formal governance mechanisms existed, but informal influence, legacy considerations, and relational power played an equally important role in shaping outcomes (Pfeffer, 2010; Mintzberg, 1983). The episode raised uncomfortable but important questions about board independence, transparency, and the actual autonomy available to professional leaders in legacy-driven organizations (Aguilera et al., 2021).
Keywords
: Corporate governance, Business groups, Leadership succession, Organizational power, Emerging markets
Downloads
References
1. Aguilera, R. V., Judge, W. Q., & Terjesen, S. (2021). Corporate governance deviance. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 319–337. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Boubaker, S., Nguyen, D. K., & Rouatbi, W. (2022). Corporate governance in emerging markets: A review and future research agenda. Emerging Markets Review, 50, 100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2021.100837 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Chakrabarti, R., Megginson, W. L., & Yadav, P. K. (2008). Corporate governance in India. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 20(1), 59–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons theory. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (2010). Winning in emerging markets: A roadmap for strategy and execution. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. OECD. (2015). OECD principles of corporate governance. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Power: Why some people have it—and others don’t. HarperBusiness. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. SEBI. (2022). Report on corporate governance practices in India. Securities and Exchange Board of India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Singh, D. A., & Delios, A. (2023). Corporate governance and ownership in emerging markets. Journal of World Business, 58(2), 101412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Supreme Court of India. (2021). Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. Tata Sons. (2023). About Tata Group and Tata Sons. https://www.tata.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Tricker, B. (2019). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Investigating the Performance of Colour Oxide on the PS/CNSO Oil Paint Production
- Real-Time Fabric Defect Detection Using a Lightweight Deformable YOLO Network
- Recent Trends in the Stock Market: An Analytical Study of Market Dynamics, Investor Behaviour, and Technological Influence
- Evaluation of Structural Dynamics and Equilibrium State, with Case Study of Large Cantilever Projection for a 10- Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Lagos, Nigeria.
- Multi-Criteria Evaluation of AI-Based Adaptive Learning Platforms in Global Higher Education: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective